People v. Skrynski
| Decision Date | 30 June 1977 |
| Citation | 42 N.Y.2d 218,366 N.E.2d 797,397 N.Y.S.2d 707 |
| Parties | , 366 N.E.2d 797 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald SKRYNSKI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Margrethe R. Powers, Albany, for appellant.
James C. Steenbergh, Dist. Atty. (Edward G. Cloke, Athens, of counsel), for respondent.
Eugene W. Salisbury, Buffalo, and Duncan S. Mac Affer, Albany, for New York State Association of Magistrates, amicus curiae.
James J. Alfini, Rochester, and Allan Ashman, Chicago, Ill., for the American Judicature Society, amicus curiae.
Rene H. Reixach, Jr., Rochester, for Greater Up-State Law Project, Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp., amicus curiae.
There are two significant issues. The first attacks, on due process constitutional grounds, the use of nonlawyer town and village Justices. The second involves the alleged lack of opportunity by defendant to be advised of his right to counsel and the availability of such counsel.
On the first due process issue the State Constitution provides for the continuance of town and village courts as they existed in the past (N.Y.Const., art. VI, § 17, subd. a). The State Constitution also provides the Legislature with the power, subject to some limitations, to change the jurisdiction of town and village courts or to eliminate them (subds. a, b). It also provides that the Legislature shall have power to prescribe the qualifications of town and village Justices (N.Y.Const. art. VI, § 20, subd. c). Consequently, under the State Constitution the current practice of lay town and village Justices is authorized.
Insofar as the Federal Constitution is concerned, the Supreme Court has determined that in certain circumstances so long as defendant has the effective alternative of a criminal trial before a court with a traditionally law-trained Judge or Judges, there is no violation of the Federal Constitution (). CPL provides for a procedure to divest the town and village courts, of, and remove to a superior court, the power to try and determine a criminal case (170.25). Consequently, there is no evident Federal infirmity in the New York State system of town and village courts with lay Justices. If there be such Federal infirmity, it is for the Supreme Court to make such determination (but see Gordon v. Justice Ct., 12 Cal.3d 323, esp. pp. 327-328, 115 Cal.Rptr. 632, 525 P.2d 72).
On the second issue, the record does not show whether defendant's right to counsel was denied or impaired. The briefed assertions submitted are contradictory. The appropriate procedure to establish such denial or impairment, if any, would be a motion to vacate the judgment in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amrein v. State
...133 (1973) (de novo appeal to a legally trained judge); State v. Haar, 100 N.M. 609, 673 P.2d 1342 (1983); People v. Skrynski, 42 N.Y.2d 218, 397 N.Y.S.2d 707, 366 N.E.2d 797 (1977) (alternative right to trial before a law-trained trial judge); and Young v. Konz, 91 Wash.2d 532, 588 P.2d 13......
-
People v. Jackson
...court disagrees with the prosecutor's interpretation of Charles, F. and the cases relied upon by that court (People v. Skrynski, 42 N.Y.2d 218, 397 N.Y.S.2d 707, 366 N.E.2d 797; North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328, 96 S.Ct. 2709, 49 L.Ed.2d 534). These cases hold that as long as there exists a m......
-
People v. Harris
...not demonstrable on the main record (see, People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 382 N.E.2d 1149; People v. Skrynski, 42 N.Y.2d 218, 222, 397 N.Y.S.2d 707, 366 N.E.2d 797; People v. Brown, 28 N.Y.2d 282, 286-87, 321 N.Y.S.2d 573, 270 N.E.2d 302). Indeed, the court has stated that......
-
Weiss v. Inc. Vill. of Sag Harbor
...either the due process or equal protection guarantees of the Constitution of the United States”); People v. Skrynski, 42 N.Y.2d 218, 397 N.Y.S.2d 707, 366 N.E.2d 797, 799 (1977) (“[T]he Supreme Court has determined that in certain circumstances so long as defendant has the effective alterna......