People v. Platt

Decision Date19 February 1969
Citation298 N.Y.S.2d 515,23 N.Y.2d 936
Parties, 246 N.E.2d 363 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John W. PLATT, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Judicial Department.

Bushwick & Barrison, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Frank S. Hogan, New York City (Michael R. Juviler, Robert D. MacLachlan, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

The defendant was charged with speeding in violation of Section 1180, subd. (b), of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, Consol.Laws, c. 71.

The summons was given the defendant on April 6 and was made returnable April 14. On the latter date the defendant's attorney appeared and pleaded not guilty. He was informed that a trial was set for August 8. The trial was commenced on August 8. The defendant appeared by attorney, but the People did not appear by attorney. A policeman took the witness stand and the court began interrogating him. After a few questions were asked the defendant's attorney objected to the trial being conducted without a prosecuting attorney representing the People. The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, adjourned the case to August 10, and directed the policeman to have a 'Police Legal Bureau Representative' in court. On August 10 the trial again began before the same judge. This time the People were represented by attorney from the 'Police Legal Bureau.' The defendant made motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, on ground of double jeopardy, and on ground that the case was being tried under unconstitutional procedure, and on ground that under the New York City Charter the Police Commission had no authority to assign a policeman-attorney to try a case on behalf of the People. The Court denied all motions. The defendant's attorney refused to participate in the trial and remained mute.

The Criminal Court of the City of New York, Hyman Solniker, J., rendered a judgment in New York County convicting the defendant of speeding.

The Appellate Term entered a judgment May 6, 1968 affirming the judgment of the Criminal Court.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, contending that procedure where court conducts the prosecution's case is inherently unconstitutional, and that the People's case should have been dismissed for failure to prosecute, and that the defendant had a constitutional right to have his trial proceed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT