People v. Semonite
| Decision Date | 20 July 1959 |
| Citation | 18 Misc.2d 427,189 N.Y.S.2d 256 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. George SEMONITE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Carl P. Goldstein, Monticello, for defendant-appellant.
Benjamin Newberg, Dist. Atty., South Fallsburg, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions, Town of Liberty, convicting defendant, after trial, of violating subdivision 3 of section 56 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, a traffic infraction commonly known as speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 2, subd. 29).
The return and amended or further return indicate that the information was not sworn to by the informant before the Justice of the Peace in question, although the Justice apparently signed the jurat thereon at some time other than when the informant affixed his signature.
An information is defined by statute as 'the allegation made to a magistrate, that a person has been guilty of some designated crime' (Code Crim.Proc. § 145). Judicial construction has decreed that such an information must be made under oath (People v. Scott, 3 N.Y.2d 148, 151-152, 164 N.Y.S.2d 707, 709-710; People ex rel. Livingston v. Wyatt, 186 N.Y. 383, 391, 79 N.E. 330, 333, 10 L.R.A.,N.S., 159; Matter of Bennett, 258 App.Div. 368, 370, 16 N.Y.S.2d 901, 903; People v. Sledge, 192 Misc. 934, 82 N.Y.S.2d 462). The same requirements in regard to an oath should be observed in regard to an information charging a traffic infraction (People v. Scott, supra; People v. Orzechowski, 4 Misc.2d 484, 486, 158 N.Y.S.2d 884, 886; City of Buffalo v. Murphy, 228 App.Div. 279, 239 N.Y.S. 206; City of Buffalo v. Neubeck, 209 App.Div. 386, 389, 204 N.Y.S. 737, 739; People v. Staples, 5 Misc.2d 619, 162 N.Y.S.2d 131; People v. Fiore, 9 Misc.2d 468, 170 N.Y.S.2d 726). As to an oath, whatever the form adopted, it must be in the presence of an officer authorized to administer it and it must be an unequivocal and present act by which the affiant consciously takes upon himself the obligation of an oath (Bookman v. City of New York, 200 N.Y. 53, 56, 93 N.E. 190, 191). Here, in this case, it appears without contradiction that the informant did not swear to or verify the information in the presence of or before the Justice. There was no waiver under sections 335 and 699 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There was no valid oath and the information therefore must fall.
Conviction reversed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dothan v. Holloway
...other New York decisions are squarely on point. They are People v. Scott, 3 N.Y.2d 148, 164 N.Y.S.2d 707 (1957); People v. Semonite, 18 Misc.2d 427, 189 N.Y.S.2d 256 (1959); People v. Ragusa, 44 Misc.2d 940, 255 N.Y.S.2d 269 (1964); and People v. Dros, 11 N.Y.2d 167, 227 N.Y.S.2d 431 obedie......
-
Huff v. Com.
...Ex parte Davis, 333 Mo. 262, 62 S.W.2d 1086 (1933). See also State v. Scott, 364 Mo. 420, 262 S.W.2d 614 (1953); People v. Semonite, 18 Misc.2d 427, 189 N.Y.S.2d 256 (1959). Lt. Barley did not sign the affidavit until after the search warrant was executed. But nothing in the Constitution of......
-
People v. Coldiron
...398, 185 N.Y.S.2d 21, rev'd 14 A.D.2d 66, 217 N.Y.S.2d 417, rev'd 11 N.Y.2d 167, 227 N.Y.S.2d 431, 182 N.E.2d 106; People v. Semonite, 18 Misc.2d 427, 189 N.Y.S.2d 256; People v. Dutcher, 38 Misc.2d 37, 236 N.Y.S.2d 899). Indeed, the potential for abuse, if this is not done, was one of the ......
-
People v. Weeks
...(People v. Scott, 3 N.Y.2d 148, 164 N.Y.S.2d 707, 143 N.E.2d 901; People v. Staples, 5 Misc.2d 619, 162 N.Y.S.2d 131; People v. Semonite, 18 Misc.2d 427, 189 N.Y.S.2d 256.) When all the facts constituting the violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law are not within the personal knowledge of ......