People v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 06 January 1983 |
| Citation | 457 N.Y.S.2d 521,91 A.D.2d 900 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Jerome MARSHALL and Janet Marshall, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B.D. Jacob, New York City, for appellant.
J. Rabinowitz, New York City, for defendants-respondents.
Before ASCH, J.P., and BLOOM, FEIN, MILONAS and ALEXANDER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 29, 1982, dismissing the indictment for failure to proceed in a timely manner, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, the indictment is reinstated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Defendants were arrested on March 11, 1981 and arraigned in Criminal Court the next day on complaints charging them with criminal possession of stolen property in the first and second degrees. The case first appeared on the Criminal Court calendar on March 17, pending indictment. Four subsequent adjournments were requested by the People. The record does not reflect reasons stated for these adjournments. However, it is now known that Detective O'Sullivan, the complaining witness who had arrested defendants, had suffered an injury on March 29, and was incapacitated and unable to return to duty from his home in Orange County until July 2. Meanwhile, on June 26, the fourth adjourned date, the complaints against defendants were dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Later in the summer the case was presented to the Grand Jury which returned an indictment on September 4, 1981, charging defendants with criminal possession of stolen property in the first and second degrees. Supreme Court warrants were issued for defendants' arrest. Assistant District Attorney Quinn testified that defendants' attorney telephoned sometime on September 9, 10 or 11 concerning the arrest warrants and offered to have his clients surrender at a convenient date, which turned out to be September 17. Defendants were arraigned the following day, at which time the People declared readiness for trial.
The prosecution must be ready to proceed to trial within six months of the commencement of a felony criminal action (CPL 30.30, subd. 1[a] ). Six months and seven days elapsed between defendants' initial arrest on March 11 and the People's indication of readiness for trial on September 18. However, most of the period between the issuance of the Supreme Court arrest warrants and defendants' surrender should not be charged to the People. In particular, the People should not be charged with any delay from the date that defendants' attorney acknowledged the existence of the arrest warrants and sought additional time for surrender, for the convenience of his clients. Depending on whether the attorney's telephone conversation was on September 9, 10 or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rambally
...medical reasons, is a sufficient exceptional circumstance to warrant the exclusion of the period of delay."]; People v. Marshall , 91 AD2d 900; 457 N.Y.S.2d 521 (1st Dept. 1983) [officer's injury and recuperation an exceptional circumstance]; People v. Lopez , 2 AD3d 234, 768 N.Y.S.2d 468 (......
-
People v. Rambally
...medical reasons, is a sufficient exceptional circumstance to warrant the exclusion of the period of delay."]; People v. Marshall, 91 AD2d 900; 457 N.Y.S.2d 521 (1st Dept. 1983)[officer's injury and recuperation an exceptional circumstance]; People v. Lopez, 2 AD3d 234, 768 N.Y.S.2d 468 (1st......
-
People v. Rivera
...Brown, supra, 113 A.D.2d at 813, 493 N.Y.S.2d 568 (ten days between reindictment and arraignment); compare, People v. Marshall, 91 A.D.2d 900, 901, 457 N.Y.S.2d 521 (1st Dept.1983) (holding period of six to eight days excludable where defense counsel "offered to have his clients surrender a......
-
People v. Williams
...538 N.Y.S.2d 68 (2d Dept.), lv. den., 74 N.Y.2d 669, 543 N.Y.S.2d 411, 541 N.E.2d 440 (1989) (death of judge); People v. Marshall, 1 A.D.2d 900, 457 N.Y.S.2d 521 (1st Dept.1983) (verified illness of material witness). Such circumstance must be proven by the People. The statute is explicit i......