People v. Ricci
| Decision Date | 11 March 1969 |
| Citation | 59 Misc.2d 259,298 N.Y.S.2d 637 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Robert RICCI and John Doe, a/k/a Steve Famiglietti, Defendants. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Arthur A. Darrigrand, Dist. Atty., for the people (Edward A. Wolff, Jr., Rome, of counsel).
Joseph J. Shinder, Utica, for defendant Steve Famiglietti.
The defendants have been indicted on three counts involving dangerous drugs. The indictment charges that on the 7th day of January 1969, the defendants acting together and in concert and each being the accomplice of the other, sold lysergic acid diethylamide, an hallucinogenic drug (LSD) to G. P. Thomas (count 1) and to M. E. Hamlin (count 2) in the city of Utica and also criminally possessed the same drug (count 3).
The defendant seeks a bill of particulars, a list of witnesses, discovery and inspection, production of the statements of witnesses; to dismiss the indictment on the ground that statutes are unconstitutional; and to inspect the grand jury minutes and dismiss the indictment.
The defendant contends that sections 220.30 and 220.10 of the Penal Law are unconstitutional in that they are vague and indefinite and do not set forth an ascertainable standard of guilt, and more particularly that they fail to define 'narcotic drug' and 'dangerous drug.'
The sections seem clear and definite in what is forbidden thereby.
Section 220.30 reads that 'A person is guilty of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree when he knowingly and unlawfully sells a dangerous drug.'
Section 220.00 defines a 'dangerous drug' as 'any narcotic drug, depressant or stimulant drug, or hallucinogenic drug.' (sub. 4). An hallucinogenic drug is defined as 'any drug, article or substance declared to be 'hallucinogenic drugs' in section two hundred twenty-nine of the mental hygiene law.' (sub. 3).
The indictment here charges a sale of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), an hallucinogenic drug. Section 229 of the Mental Hygiene Law includes lysergic acid diethylamide among the hallucinogenic drugs.
Section 220.30 and the analogous section 220.10 relating to possession are constitutional. Motion to dismiss the indictment denied.
The defendant seeks to inspect the grand jury minutes on the ground that (a) the sole testimony before the jury must have been that of the undercover agents and that their testimony is uncorroborated and (b) that there was entrapment in this case.
As to (a) the defendant claims that Thomas and Hamlin 'were acting in disguise at the time * * * being disguised as hippies' and having participated in the alleged transaction as accomplices, their testimony standing alone is insufficient and illegal as a matter of law.
Only the seller of a dangerous drug, not the buyer, is guilty of the crime of criminally selling a drug. The buyer of a dangerous drug, moreover is not an accomplice of the seller and the buyer's testimony need not be corroborated, regardless of whether or not the buyer is an undercover agent of the police.
This Court has already held in a companion case that entrapment is an affirmative defense to be raised at the trial and matters of defense are not grounds for inspecting grand jury minutes.
In the interest of justice, the Court has personally examined the minutes and finds therein nothing which would be of the least benefit to defendant on the defense of entrapment. The Court finds that there was sufficient legal evidence before the grand jury to warrant the presentment. Motion to inspect is denied.
The defendant seeks the following particulars with respect to selling counts:
a(1) The exact place, by street number and name, with a statement as to whether the alleged sale took place indoors or outdoors.
a(2) The alleged consideration received by the defendant for the sale.
a(3) The exact time and date when the alleged sale took place.
a(4) The chemical composition of the drug.
a(5) The full name, address and professional occupation of G. P. Thomas. b(5) of M. E. Hamlin.
a(6) How the defendant knowingly and unlawfully sold the dangerous drug.
a(7) The exact amount of dangerous drug allegedly sold.
With respect to the possession count:
c(1) The exact place where the possession occurred.
c(2) Chemical composition of the drug.
c(3) The exact time and date when the possession occurred.
c(4) Whether Famiglietti's possession was actual or constructive c(5) If possession was actual, on what part of his body was such possession.
c(6) If constructive, a physical description of the premises and places wherein possession took place.
c(7) The factual manner in which it is claimed that defendant knowingly possessed the drug.
c(8) The factual manner in which it is claimed that defendant unlawfully possessed the drug.
c(9) The factual manner of defendant's 'intent to sell.'
c(10) The exact amount by weight and number of the dangerous drug possessed by defendant.
The provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which relates to bills of particulars is found in Section 295--g of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although the statute mentions simplified indictments, a bill of particulars may be granted where the long form of indictment is employed. People on complaint of Capell v. Palmer, 170 Misc. 475, 9 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1939).
A demand for a bill of particulars should not be the method employed for a discovery and inspection which has no relationship to the indictment itself.
'The purpose of a bill of particulars is not, however, to enable counsel for the accused to examine the opponent's case as on a trial, but it shall serve merely as a clarification of certain matters set forth in the indictment.' People v. Parkinson (1943) 181 Misc. 603, 607, 41 N.Y.S.2d 331, 335.
Thus, a defendant under a demand for a bill of particulars is not entitled to be informed of the precise nature of the evidence of the prosecution or the theory of criminal responsibility intended to be relied upon by the district attorney. People v. Courtney, 40 Misc.2d 541, 243 N.Y.S.2d 457. Matters which are within defendant's knowledge are not proper subjects for bills of particulars. People v. Florence, 146 Misc. 152, 261 N.Y.S. 803, modified 146 Misc. 735, 262 N.Y.S. 775. Items which are matters of defense are not to be granted. People v. Rooks, 35 Misc.2d 598, 229 N.Y.S.2d 923.
In all cases, bills of particulars rest within the sound discretion of the court. People v. Giles, 31 Misc.2d 354, 220 N.Y.S.2d 905; People v. Courtney, 40 Misc.2d 541, 243 N.Y.S.2d 457; People v. Matera, 52 Misc.2d 674, 276 N.Y.S.2d 776.
As to the various items asked for, the following is the ruling:
Items a(1), (3); b(1), (3); c(1), (3).
This court has followed the practice of allowing a defendant more definite information as to time and place. People v. Jones (1959) 15 Misc.2d 647, 185 N.Y.S.2d 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 times of day or night when, and the approximate places or locations where, the crimes alleged took place.'
People v. Nibbs (1960) Gen.Sess., 206 N.Y.S.2d 17.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Utley
...requested is either evidentiary in nature (§ 200.90(3) C.P.L.), or is not found to be necessary to the defense (People v. Ricci, 59 Misc.2d 259, 298 N.Y.S.2d 637; In re Edgar L., 66 Misc.2d 142, 320 N.Y.S.2d 570). The defendant is granted leave to renew the motion upon a proper showing that......
-
People v. Bennett
...trial level have denied similar relief. (See People v. Nationwide News Service, 172 Misc. 752, 16 N.Y.S.2d 277. Compare People v. Ricci, 59 Misc.2d 259, 298 N.Y.S.2d 637; People v. Steinberg, 60 Misc.2d 1041, 304 N.Y.S.2d 858.) In People v. Lynch, 23 N.Y.2d 262, at pp. 271--272, 296 N.Y.S.2......
-
People v. Green
...Ct., Nassau County, 1973); People v. Smalley, 64 Misc.2d 363, 314 N.Y.S.2d 924 (County Ct., Schuyler County, 1970); People v. Ricci, 59 Misc.2d 259, 298 N.Y.S.2d 637 (County Ct., Oneida County, 1969), and People v. Golly, 43 Misc.2d 122, 250 N.Y.S.2d 210 (Sup.Ct., N.Y. County, 1964)). The n......
-
Vergari v. Kendall
...by trial courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure, (e.g., People v. Steinberg, 60 Misc.2d 1041, 304 N.Y.S.2d 858; People v. Ricci, 59 Misc.2d 259, 298 N.Y.S.2d 637; People v. McDonald, 59 Misc.2d 311, 298 N.Y.S.2d 625; People v. Matera, 52 Misc.2d 674, 276 N.Y.S.2d The record reveals no ......