People v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 04 December 1975
• Citation: People v. Johnson, 38 N.Y.2d 271, 379 N.Y.S.2d 735, 342 N.E.2d 525 (N.Y. 1975)
• Parties: , 342 N.E.2d 525 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 735

379 N.Y.S.2d 735

38 N.Y.2d 271, 342 N.E.2d 525

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Thomas JOHNSON, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 4, 1975.

Richard A. Greenberg and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.

Mario Merola, Dist. Atty. (Vincent L. Gambale, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

WACHTLER, Judge.

The defendant was incarcerated for 18 months awaiting trial on an indictment charging him with murder and possession of a weapon as a misdemeanor.He claims that he repeatedly but unsuccessfully demanded a prompt trial and finally pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the second degree only because, in the interim, an important defense witness moved from the area and could not be located.The delay was caused by a shortage of trial lawyers in the prosecutor's office.The question is whether under these circumstancesthe State has met its obligation to provide the accused with a speedy trial guaranteed by statute(CPL 30.20;Civil Rights Law, § 12) and the Federal Constitution(U.S.Const. 6th Amdt.;Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1).We hold that the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.The plea must be set aside and the indictment dismissed.

On December 7, 1971Fred Womack was stabbed to death on a street outside the defendant's apartment.The defendant was arrested and incarcerated on January 7, 1972 and on January 27he was indicted for murder and misdemeanor possession of a weapon in connection with the Womack homicide.At the arraignment, held on February 18, he pleaded not guilty.As the record later indicates, the defendant did not deny the killing but claimed instead that he acted in self-defense.In March he moved for a bill of particulars and requested that an investigator be assigned to assist in his defense.On March 29he announced that he was ready for trial and the case was set down for trial on April 11, 1972.

On the trial date an Assistant District Attorney informed the court that a trial prosecutor had not yet been assigned to the case and the court granted an adjournment to May 2.¹On that date the trial prosecutor appeared and requested that the case be adjourned to May 25.Although no reason was given for the request, it was summarily granted.Bail was fixed at $25,000 over the District Attorney's objection that it should be set at $50,000.

On May 25the case was adjourned to June 19 and the defendant's request for a bail reduction was denied.On June 19 defense counsel informed the court that he had just received an order granting his earlier motion for an investigator and requested that the case be adjourned for a month.²He also requested that bail be reduced to $5,000--an amount within the defendant's means.The court granted the adjournment but denied the bail application.

On July 17the defendant informed the court that he would 'like to go to trial' but the prosecutor stated that this was impossible because he had 'approximately 8 or 10 cases ahead of this'.The court granted the adjournment noting that 'there are cases of much older vintage, which are going over to September.In the regular course, this case is not going to be tried for some period of time.'The defendant then personally made a heated and emotional application for reduction of bail, which was denied.

On September 21the defendant announced that he was ready for trial and the District Attorney conceded that he was not because he still had older cases which he had to try first.The case wad adjourned to October 11 at which time the prosecutor stated that he was 'actually on trial' on another case.An adjournment was granted to November 9.

On October 25defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court claiming, Inter alia, that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial.Although the prosecutor defaulted, the application was denied because the defendant had not exhausted available State remedies.Returning to the trial court on November 9the defendant found that the prosecutor planned to try another 'older' case on the following day and thus was still not ready to proceed with the defendant's trial.It was adjourned to December 4.The defendant then applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the Bronx Supreme Court which, after a hearing, was denied 'on condition that he proceed to trial on December 4'.

On December 4the prosecutor made the same excuse and although the court noted that 'this is one (case) that calls for an immediate trial'he agreed to 'go along respecting your (the prosecutor's) priorities.'The case was adjourned to December 18.On that date the prosecutor was still not prepared to reach the defendant's case and it was adjourned to January 8, 1973.However the defendant argued that if he could not be granted a trial he should at least have his bail reduced.Over the District Attorney's objection the court granted the motion and reduced the bail to $15,000.

This pattern was repeated twice in January, once in February, and again on March 20, 1973 with one variation.In January the court reduced bail to $10,000 but since the defendant was unable to raise this amount he remained in custody.On March 26, 1973the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment claiming that he had been denied a speedy trial.After reciting the history of the case, he also alleged that during the delay an important defense witness had left the area and could not be found.Denying the motion without a hearing, the court held that 'the defendant cannot truthfully say that he was prepared to go to trial' before June 12, 1972--the date the court signed the order appointing an investigator for the defendant.Regarding the delay occurring after that date the court held that it 'does not constitute such a long delay under the circumstances as to warrant a dismissal for lack of prosecution.'The court also noted that the case was scheduled for trial on April 26, 1973 and '(i)f the defendant is not given a trial within 30 days after that time, absent a valid reason for delay, counsel will be on extremely firm ground to obtain a dismissal of the indictment.'

Nevertheless on April 26 the trial prosecutor was engaged on a different case and he requested, through another assistant, that the defendant's trial be adjourned to May 11.Although defense counsel objected stating, as he had in the past, that he was ready now to try the case, the court granted the adjournment.Once again defense counsel, joined by the defendant, appealed for a bail reduction noting that the defendant had been incarcerated for over a year; that both he and his wife were suffering from the strain and that the delay, coupled with his incarceration, had 'handicapped' the defense.He informed the court that 'A very important witness who saw the altercation since moved from the area and the defendant feels if he's out on bail he'll do everything he can to trace this very, very important witness.He can't do it while he's incarcerated and its hurting him immeasurably by being incarcerated and not being given his liberty on reasonable bail.'The application was denied.

Predictably the same thing occurred on May 11, May 25 and June 11, 1973.Finally on July 2, 1973the defendant appeared in court and agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter in the second degree because, as he stated at the time, 'I have no other alternative.I would like it known to the court due to incarceration so long I have lost witnesses, valuable witnesses * * * So I have no other alternative but to take the plea.'He was subsequently sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

He appealed to the Appellate Division claiming that the conviction should be set aside, and the indictment dismissed because he had been denied a speedy trial, but that court affirmed without opinion.

The speedy trial guaranteed by statute and the Federal Constitution serves three primary purposes: 'It protects the accused, if held in jail to await trial, against prolonged imprisonment; it relieves him of the anxiety and public suspicion attendant upon an untried accusation of crime; and finally, like statutes of limitation, it prevents him from being 'exposed to the hazard of a trial, after so great a lapse of time' that 'the means of proving his innocence may not be within his reach'--as for instance, by the loss of witnesses, or the dulling of memory'(People v. Prosser, 309 N.Y. 353, 356, 130 N.E.2d 891, 893;see, also, United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 320, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468).But the guarantee also serves a broader, more poublic, purpose for society too has an interest in seeing that those accused of crimes are swiftly brought to justice (Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 519, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101;People v. Minicone, 28 N.Y.2d 279, 281, 321 N.Y.S.2d 570, 571--572, 270 N.E.2d 300, 301--302;People v. Blakley, 34 N.Y.2d 311, 314, 315, 357 N.Y.S.2d 459, 462--463, 313 N.E.2d 763, 764, 765).Unless criminal accusations are promptly tried, those disposed to crime can always hope to beat the system by pleading to a lesser offense, those indicted for crimes are left at large for long periods perhaps to further menace the community and those convicted of crimes are often sent to correctional institutions long after the time for meaningful rehabilitation has passed.(See, e.g., Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U.S. at pp. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 2182.)Thus the speedy trial requirement not only ensures fair and humane treatment of the accused, but serves as well, to promote the efficiency of the criminal justice system.

In People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 81--82, 335 N.E.2d 303, 305--306this court identified five factors to be considered in determining whether the requirement has been met.They are: '(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of...