People v. Trottie
| Decision Date | 03 March 1975 |
| Citation | 47 A.D.2d 751,364 N.Y.S.2d 563 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Allen Q. TROTTIE and Terry L. Spearman, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Frank J. Carollo, of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. O'Toole, New Rochelle, for respondent Spearman.
Andrew J. Natale, Jr., Yonkers, for respondent Trottie.
Before MARTUSCELLO, Acting P.J., and COHALAN, CHRIST, BRENNAN and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Westchester County, made August 27, 1973, which granted, without prejudice, defendants' oral motion to dismiss the indictment at the close of a pretrial identification hearing.
Order reversed, on the law, motion denied, without prejudice to renewal upon compliance with the pertinent statutory requirements hereinbelow mentioned, and indictment reinstated.
Defendants were charged with various crimes under a multi-count indictment. At an identification hearing conducted immediately prior to trial, the People failed to produce two material witnesses. A three-day adjournment was granted the People to afford them an opportunity to bring in these witnesses, but they again failed to appear. Both defendants then orally moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People were not ready for trial, noting that the People had been granted two prior adjournments.
After argument on the motion and a statement by the Assistant District Attorney as to the efforts of the New Rochelle Police Department to communicate with the material witnesses, the court stated, Inter alia, that, without the witnesses 'the People have failed to establish as a matter of law the identification as claimed by the People.' It noted that, as regards the question of proceeding with trial, the People had had sufficient time and opportunity to bring forth their material witnesses and observed that one of the defendants had been in jail for at least six months. The court then granted the oral motion to dismiss 'in the interests of justice'.
A motion to dismiss an indictment must be in writing and upon reasonable notice to the People (CPL 210.45, subd. 1; People v. Ryan, 42 A.D.2d 869, 347 N.Y.S.2d 216). It requires a hearing, at which time the court could determine whether there are any compelling factors necessitating a dismissal in the interests of justice and adequately set forth its reasons therefor on the record (CPL...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rao
...to the People, is necessary in such cases (see People v. Pichkur, 52 A.D.2d 852, 382 N.Y.S.2d 565 (2d Dept., 1976); People v. Trottie, 47 A.D.2d 751, 364 N.Y.S.2d 563). No such motion, or even one to simply inspect the Grand Jury minutes, was ever made by the defendants Rao. Furthermore, un......
-
People v. Williams
...N.Y.S.2d 441; People v. Singleton, 50 A.D.2d 938, 377 N.Y.S.2d 198; People v. Belkota, 50 A.D.2d 118, 377 N.Y.S.2d 321; People v. Trottie, 47 A.D.2d 751, 364 N.Y.S.2d 563; People v. Kwok Ming Chan, 45 A.D.2d 613, 360 N.Y.S.2d Moreover, the Appellate Division in this Department, in People v.......
-
People v. Boynton
...342 N.Y.S.2d 106), but neither was provided in the instant case. This defect alone would constitute reversible error (People v. Trottie, 47 A.D.2d 751, 364 N.Y.S.2d 563). The record herein is devoid of any facts which even remotely suggest that a retrial would work an injustice upon this de......
-
People v. Key
...CPL 210.45). However, inasmuch as the motion was made orally and without notice, it should have been denied (see People v. Trottie, 47 A.D.2d 751, 364 N.Y.S.2d 563). Finally, while the court in its discretion, pursuant to CPL 40.30(4), granted reargument of defendant's motion and by adherin......