People v. Timothy
| Citation | 34 N.Y.2d 867,359 N.Y.S.2d 114 |
| Parties | , 316 N.E.2d 580 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William TIMOTHY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1974 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Benjamin Heinrich and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (Martin I. Saperstein, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
We affirm the orders of the Appellate Division, 40 A.D.2d 954, 337 N.Y.S.2d 813; 41 A.D.2d 745, 341 N.Y.S.2d 574.
Certainly the 22- and 29-month delays from arrest to trial attending the two indictments here in question were unfortunate and not to be encouraged. However, we are not able to conclude that such delay, by itself, has worked a denial of defendant's Sixth Amendment rights or in any way prejudiced him. Much of the delay during the latter stages was occasioned by defendant's dissatisfaction with several assigned counsel who had to be replaced, and by counsel's other engagements (People v. Purdy, 29 N.Y.2d 800, 327 N.Y.S.2d 362, 277 N.E.2d 410). During a discussion occurring on the eve of trial defense counsel stated that defendant had largely contributed to the delay. There is, moreover, no indication that defendant or his various counsel voiced objection to those delays brought on at the instance of the prosecution and court (People v. Prosser, 309 N.Y. 353, 359, 360, 130 N.E.2d 891). Delay alone does not automatically breach the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights. Each such case must be determined on balance, i.e., the conduct of the prosecution and that of the defendant are weighed (see People v. Blakley, 34 N.Y.2d 311, 357 N.Y.S.2d 459, 313 N.E.2d 763). In assessing these cases the courts should especially review events occurring toward the end of the pertinent time period, whether the total period be long or short. If, as here, significant delays are then instigated by the defense, and if earlier delays were justified or not objected to, then defendant nor-mally should have no ground for complaint.
SAMUEL RABIN, J., taking no part.
Orders affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Guerra
...... In People v. Timothy, 34 N.Y.2d 867, 359 N.Y.S.2d 114, 316 N.E.2d 580, the Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction where the delay from arrest to trial was 29 months, stating, 'Delay alone does not automatically breach the defendant's constitutional and [81 Misc.2d 86] statutory rights. Each . Page 346. such case must ......
-
People v. Singletary
......4, par. (a); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303; People v. Timothy, 34 N.Y.2d 867, 359 N.Y.S.2d 114, 316 N.E.2d 580). Defendant next contends that the introduction of testimony as to the method of identification employed by the police violated the prohibition against testimony which is introduced solely to bolster an eye-witness' identification ......
-
People v. Kwok Ming Chan
...... (CPL 30.30, subd. 4) Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101; see: People v. Timothy, 34 N.Y.2d 867, 868, 359 N.Y.S.2d 114, 316 N.E.2d 580; People v. Blakley, 34 N.Y.2d 311, 316--317, 357 N.Y.S.2d 459, 313 N.E.2d 763. Dismissal was expressly granted under CPL 210.40. CPL 210.40 is not a catch-all residuary clause authorizing dismissal as an exercise of absolute ......
-
People v. Tolkow
...... 'Delay alone does not automatically breach the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights. Each case must be determined on balance, i.e., the conduct of the prosecution and that of the defendant are weighed.' (People v. Timothy, 34 N.Y.2d 867, 868, 359 N.Y.S.2d 114, 115, 316 N.E.2d 580) The Court finds nothing unseemly in the conduct of either, but the periods of delay attributable to both, other . Page 760. than the five month interval preceding November 4, 1974, must be excluded from the computation of the period ......