People v. Stamp
| Decision Date | 26 May 1983 |
| Citation | 120 Misc.2d 48,465 N.Y.S.2d 122 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Christopher L. STAMP, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Town Court |
Movant requests an Order directing the People to employ the services of a breathalyzer expert on behalf of Defendant, whom he described as indigent. Accompanying was an Affidavit by Defendant stating that he is a senior at Cornell University, is unemployed, is not supported by his parents, and has no income or assets with which to obtain funds to employ the services of a breathalyzer expert. Movant avers that expert testimony is necessary due to the charged breathalyzer reading (.13); the People's use of an instrument "which had not been properly tested"; and the use of ampoules "that were outdated".
Movant filed further affidavit which states the basis for his request for an expert is found in Section 722-c of the County Law 1. Assistant District Attorney Robert C. Foster, for the People, opposes the Defendant's motion.
To comply with the provisions of Section 722-c, the Court must find (1) that the demanded services (investigative, expert, or other) are necessary, and (2) that defendant is financially unable to obtain them (People v. Pride, 79 Misc.2d 581, 360 N.Y.S.2d 572). This court will address the first requirement only.
The record shows several cases in which the courts have confronted the issue of necessity in deciding whether the relief allowed by Section 722-c should be granted.
In People v. Irvine, 40 A.D.2d 560, 334 N.Y.S.2d 502, the Defendant, charged with robbery in the second degree, was provided the services of an investigator to determine facts regarding the complainant's false testimony, with the court stating, "this seems a fitting case for application of the statute".
In People v. Hatterson, 63 A.D.2d 736, 405 N.Y.S.2d 297, the Defendant, charged with rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and robbery in the third degree, had his conviction reversed because he had been denied the employment of a physician and a psychiatrist at city's expense. The court, noting that the People, during their direct case, offered testimony by an expert in psychotherapy, labeled the trial court's denial "an improvident exercise of discretion".
In People v. Pride (supra) the Defendant, indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree was denied the services of an investigator to resolve a claimed identification question. The court stated, "there is * * * a serious question as to the need for the requested services".
The cases cited, as well as others decided since the passage of Article 18-B of the County Law, have in common that all concerned felony grade offenses. In addition (whether the applications for public funds were granted or not) all concerned the employment of an investigator to resolve a fact in issue or a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D. v. K.
...(1) that petitioner is financially unable to obtain the service; and (2) that the demanded services are necessary. People v. Stamp, 120 Misc.2d 48, 465 N.Y.S.2d 122 (1983). Petitioner is incarcerated in state prison after having been convicted of Murder Second Degree on March 16, 1984. It i......
-
People v. Trinidad
...is financially unable to retain the services, and (2) that the demanded services are necessary (People v Brown, 136 AD2d 1, 15; People v Stamp, 120 Misc 2d 48; Matter of D. v K., 131 Misc 2d 775). Under the particular circumstances of this case, the defendant has failed to make the requisit......
-
Pre-trial preparation
...“no authority” to authorize services at public expense in any instance other than one involving a serious crime. See People v. Stamp , 120 Misc.2d 48, 465 N.Y.S.2d 122 (1983). The Little v. Armontrout reasoning should prove persuasive to courts that in any criminal case, whether it be a mis......