People v. Parmelee
| Decision Date | 08 March 1968 |
| Citation | 56 Misc.2d 146,288 N.Y.S.2d 659 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nigel G. PARMELEE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Dugan & Schneider, Penn Yan, Donald A. Schneider, Penn Yan, of counsel, for defendant-appellant.
Daniel R. Taylor, Dist. Atty., County of Yates, Walter O. Vail, Penn Yan, of counsel.
The defendant appeals to this court from a judgment of conviction of speeding in violation of sec. 1180, Sub. (b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, after trial before a Court of Special Sessions, the Hon. PETER JENSEN, Justice of the Peace of the Town of Torrey, Yates County, presiding on November 13, 1967. Upon the conviction the court imposed a fine of $25.00.
Defendant contends, among other things, that the People failed upon the trial to prove a prima facie case. Specifically, the defendant contends that there was a fatal variance between the allegations of the complaint and the proof adduced upon the trial. The record bears out the defendant's contention in this regard.
The complaint charges the defendant motorist with having committed the alleged violation on November 5, 1967. The transcript of testimony of the arresting officer (the People's only witness) reads as follows:
Q. Were you on duty the 23rd day of October, 1967?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. And is that the day with which we are concerned?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. On this day did you observe the defendant operating a motor vehicle?
A. Yes, I did.
This was the only reference in the testimony to the date in question.
At the close of the People's case the defendant's attorney properly moved to dismiss the information upon the ground the prosecution had failed to prove the offense as charged. The People then moved to amend the testimony to conform to the date set forth in the complaint, viz., November 5, 1967. The motion was granted. No motion was made to reopen the People's case.
Amendments of an indictment (with respect to dates and time) to conform to proof are permitted under certain conditions pursuant to Sec. 293 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Also see, Sec. 62, Code of Criminal Procedure). However, the court has no power to permit amendment of proof and testimony to conform to the indictment or information. Where proof fails the only cure is more or different evidence. None was offered in the instant case. In short, the evidence and testimony wholly failed to prove a material allegation of the complaint, viz., the date on which the alleged violation occurred.
Ordinarily, a variance between the date of the offense as alleged in the indictment or information and the actual date proved upon trial may be disregarded (cf., Sec. 280, Code of Criminal Procedure; also see People v. Jackson, 111 N.Y. 362, 19 N.E. 54) particularly where the exact time when an offense was committed is an immaterial element of proof of the proscribed conduct. However, this court is compelled to conclude that the alleged date of the alleged traffic violation is an essential...
To continue reading
Request your trial