People v. Kamps
| Decision Date | 27 November 1956 |
| Citation | 4 Misc.2d 518,161 N.Y.S.2d 211 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. Charles E. KAMPS. |
| Court | New York County Court |
George W. Percy, Jr., Dist. Atty. Suffolk County, Riverhead, for the people.
James D. C. Murray, New York City, for defendant.
The indictment against the defendant charges in five separate counts, burglary in the second degree, assault in the second degree, attempted rape in the first degree, robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the second degree. The defendant moves for a bill of particulars asking complete and exact details of all of his alleged acts. The prosecution claims there was a single incident during which all the alleged crimes were committed. The defense claims mistaken identity and indicates an alibi defense.
Because a simplified indictment was used the defendant is entitled at least to the bill of particulars required by Sec. 295-h of the Code or Criminal Procedure. He asks, however, for exact details as to the date, time and place of the alleged crimes. Because the defense is an alibi, People v. Wright, 172 Misc. 860, 16 N.Y.S.2d 593, he should be furnished the exact date of the alleged occurrences, as well as an accurate location description of the place, including the street and house number if the place has one. The times of the alleged acts should be approximated within a reasonable degree of exactitude and the name of the injured person should be supplied. No more exact particulars will be required to be furnished as to the items in the demand lettered 'A', 'B' and 'D', nor any more particulars than those required by Sec. 295-h of the Code of Criminal Procedure in response to items lettered 'C' and 'F'. The item lettered 'E' calls for evidence which need not be supplied.
On the argument of this motion the District Attorney asked for a bill of particulars from the defendant on the alibi. This will not be directed or required unless the District Attorney serves the notice required by Sec. 295-l, Code of Criminal Procedure.
Submit order.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ricci
...827. The word 'exact' should be interpreted to mean 'approximated within a reasonable degree of exactitude.' People v. Kamps, 4 Misc.2d 518, 519, 161 N.Y.S.2d 211, 212. The above items are granted to the extent only of requiring the People to furnish the defendant 'with the approximate time......
-
People v. Sobieraj
...defendant. People v. Wright, 172 Misc. 860, 861, 16 N.Y.S.2d 593, 594; People v. Hayner, 198 Misc. 101, 97 N.Y.S.2d 64; People v. Kamps, 4 Misc.2d 518, 161 N.Y.S.2d 211; People v. McCoy, 162 App.Div. 182, 147 N.Y.S.2d 748. See, also, Sec. 280, Code of Criminal The defendant urges that the r......
-
People v. Britt
...such as is claimed in this case that he should be furnished with the 'exact date of the alleged occurrences'. People v. Kamps, 4 Misc.2d 518, at 519, 161 N.Y.S.2d 211, at 212. Our courts have compelled the service of bills of particulars in rape cases and required the People to set forth th......
-
Commissioner of Welfare v. De Santos
... ... Under the common law, the father of an illegitimate child was under no legal obligation whatever to support such child, People ex rel. Lawton v. Snell, 216 N.Y. 527, 111 N.E. 50; Hutton v. Bretsch, 216 N.Y. 23, 109 N.E. 858; Todd v. Weber, 95 N.Y. 181 ... ... ...