People v. Mudra
| Decision Date | 09 July 1958 |
| Citation | 12 Misc.2d 438,177 N.Y.S.2d 224 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Leo MUDRA, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
John C. Gotimer, Cambria Heights, for defendant, for the motion.
Frank D. O'Connor, Dist. Atty., Long Island City (Howard D. Stave, Asst. Dist. Atty., Flushing, of counsel), opposed.
Motion to dismiss indictment granted. Code Criminal Procedure Secs. 8, subd. 1, and 668. The main question is whether defendant abandoned or waived his Section 668 right to request a dismissal for past delay by his prior service of a notice and request for a final disposition of the indictment under the provisions of Section 669-a. (Id.) In accordance with the views expressed in my opinion in the Segura case, (People v. Segura, 12 Misc.2d 279, 177 N.Y.S.2d 218) I hold that he did not. The remaining question is whether the period of delay--not quite 14 months--is sufficient to entitle defendant to a dismissal. I hold that it is, since the District Attorney has not attempted to show any good cause for its occurrence.
Concededly, the right to a speedy trial is 'necessarily relative' and consistent with delays reasonably required by public justice, (Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U.S. 77, 86-87, 25 S.Ct. 573, 49 L.Ed. 950) and whether the delay is 'undue' is determinable by reference to the circumstances and not merely the fact of its occurrence. People v. Prosser, 309 N.Y. 353, 357, 130 N.E.2d 891, 894, 57 A.L.R.2d 295; People v. Godwin, 2 A.D.2d 846, 156 N.Y.S.2d 37, case 2, affirmed 2 N.Y.2d 891, 161 N.Y.S.2d 145. But where it exceeds the period contemplated by the statute the defendant is entitled to a dismissal 'unless good cause to the contrary be shown.' Code Criminal Procedure, Sec. 668. There is no presumption that it was for good cause. Harris v. Municipal Court, 209 Cal. 55, 64, 285 P. 699. The burden of proving such cause--and thus, that the delay was not 'undue'--is on the prosecution. People v. Prosser, supra, 309 N.Y. 358, 130 N.E.2d 894; State v. Lester, 161 Wash. 227, 230, 296 P. 549. It is presumed that the defendant was prejudiced by the delay. Harris v. Municipal Court, supra. Consequently, the delay in this case entitled defendant to a dismissal of the indictment.
Order entered accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tower
...See also People v. Masselli, 17 A.D.2d 367, 234 N.Y.S.2d 929, dismissal for delay of about 10 months of a retrial; and People v. Mudra, 12 Misc.2d 438, 177 N.Y.S.2d 224, case dismissed because of a 14-month People ex rel. Harty v. Fay, 10 N.Y.2d 374, 379, 223 N.Y.S.2d 468, 471, 179 N.E.2d 4......
-
People v. Sylvester
...1 of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see People v. Sylvester, 50 Misc.2d 677, 271 N.Y.S.2d 118; People v. Mudra, 12 Misc.2d 438, 177 N.Y.S.2d 224). Since both the District Attorney and the Matteawan officials are agents of the State, the fault of the Matteawan officials in not ......
-
People v. Abbatiello
...v. Prosser, 309 N.Y. 353, 358, 130 N.E.2d 891, 894, 57 A.L.R.2d 295; People v. Darrah, 29 A.D.2d 816, 287 N.Y.S.2d 494; People v. Mudra, 12 Misc.2d 438, 177 N.Y.S.2d 224.) Where, as here, a motion is properly made by written notice of motion and affidavit, the district attorney, if he oppos......
-
People v. Roberts
...any attempt to offer 'good cause' for its occurrence.' People v. Segura, 12 Misc.2d 279, 280, 177 N.Y.S.2d 218, 219; People v. Mudra, 12 Misc.2d 438, 177 N.Y.S.2d 224. Submit ...