People v. Webb
| Decision Date | 28 October 1980 |
| Citation | 432 N.Y.S.2d 826,105 Misc.2d 660 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Brian WEBB, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Queens County, for the People; Asst. Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens, of counsel.
Cesar Cirigliano, New York City, for defendant; Judah Maltz, Forest Hills, of counsel.
This case is before this Court for decision on a series of motions by the defendant for a Bill of Particulars, a hearing on a motion to suppress physical evidence, and a motion to preclude the District Attorney from introducing evidence for failure to comply with a previously submitted Demand for Discovery.
The defendant, Brian Webb, was arrested on September 13, 1980, and arraigned on September 14, 1980 upon a felony complaint charging Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Sell, Penal Law Sec. 220.06. A demand for discovery was served by the defense attorney upon the People at arraignment on the felony complaint. On October 7, 1980 the charge was reduced to Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance, Penal Law Sec. 220.03, a misdemeanor and the felony complaint was thereupon reduced to a misdemeanor information.
The attorney for the defendant in the instant motion seeks preclusion of the People from presenting evidence for failure to comply with the Demand served on September 14, 1980.
The sanction of preclusion is included in a list of available remedies regarding Discovery on Demand in Sec. 240.70 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Discovery on Demand is permitted only where a defendant is being prosecuted by "an indictment, superior court information, prosecutor's information or information." Sec. 240.20(1) C.P.L. There is no provision for discovery upon a felony complaint or a misdemeanor complaint. This is in keeping with the legislative philosophy of prosecuting only upon non-hearsay allegations of fact, and limiting the use of hearsay complaints to court arraignment and temporary control over the defendant's person for a given period solely on the basis of reasonable cause. See Sec. 170.65 C.P.L., subdivision 1; Art. 100 C.P.L.
The service of a Demand for Discovery upon a felony complaint, therefore, constitutes a nullity. In addition to the legislative philosophy discussed above, there are practical reasons for such a result. Frequently, the charges and the gravamen of a complaint are altered during the progress of a case from arraignment in criminal court to consideration by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Russo
...of the grand jury's "target" may vary greatly. Matter Report of Grand Jury, 77 A.D.2d 199, 201, 433 N.Y.S.2d 300; People v. Webb, 105 Misc.2d 660, 432 N.Y.S.2d 826. As the court noted in People v. Webb, "the items initially requested by a demand [for discovery] on a felony complaint may no ......
-
People v. Woodson
...is no CPL 240.20 discovery based on a felony complaint (see, People v. Ramirez, 129 Misc.2d 112, 492 N.Y.S.2d 906; People v. Webb, 105 Misc.2d 660, 432 N.Y.S.2d 826). However, this does not prevent a court from granting discovery under its inherent general powers (Judiciary Law § 2-b[3]. Th......
-
People v. Delgado
...information or information (CPL 240.20(1)); there is no provision for discovery upon a felony or misdemeanor complaint (People v. Webb, 105 Misc.2d 660, 432 N.Y.S.2d 826). As a consequence, prosecutorial discovery was not available against this defendant who was charged by felony complaint ......
-
People v. Zisis
...no provision permitting discovery motions by a defendant against whom a misdemeanor complaint is pending (see, e.g., People v. Webb, 105 Misc.2d 660, 432 N.Y.S.2d 826 only other, specified motions are permitted to be made on a misdemeanor complaint (see footnote 4 at p. 658, supra ). Discov......