People v. Weeks
Decision Date | 19 July 1963 |
Citation | 242 N.Y.S.2d 121,39 Misc.2d 765 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harold L. WEEKS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New York County Court |
Michaels, Port & Cuddy, Auburn (Peter E. Corning, Auburn, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Theodore M. Coburn, Dist. Atty. (Charles W. Avery, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
On March 23, 1963, while the defendant, Harold L. Weeks, was driving a 1955 Buick sedan in a westerly direction in the Town of Sennett, Cayuga County, State of New York, he passed through a radar unit operated by Tropper A. T. Slocum, who by radio informed Tropper D. B. Eldridge in a pickup car that the 1955 Buick sedan was traveling at 72 m. p. h. Trooper Eldridge stopped the 1955 Buick sedan. He ascertained that the defendant, Harold L. Weeks, was the operator, and issued a uniform traffic ticket to him for traveling 72 m. p. h. in a 50 m. p. h. zone, in violation of Section 1180(b) 2, of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Trooper Eldridge filed a copy of the uniform traffic ticket entitled 'COMPLAINT,' with Bert S. Westlake, Justice of Peace, Town of Sennett. This ticket was used as the information pursuant to Chapter 1-A of title 3 of part 4 (§§ 147-a-147-g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (simplified traffic informations). The complete information reads as follows:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
There were no supporting depositions attached to the information, nor did it state that it was based upon information and belief.
On March 25, 1963, the defendant appeared before Bert S. Westlake, Justice of the Peace. After the defendant was informed of all his rights, a motion was made by his attorney for dismissal of the information on the grounds it was insufficient. This motion was denied. The defendant pleaded not guilty, requested a bill of particulars and demanded a trial. On March 27, 1963, a bill of particulars in the form of supporting affidavits signed by Troopers Eldridge and Slocum, were filed with the Court.
A trial without a jury was held on May 16, 1963 in the Court of Special Sessions of the Town of Sennett, County of Cayuga, State of New York, Bert S. Westlake, Justice of the Peace, presiding. The defendant was found guilty of the charge of speeding in violation of Section 1180(b) 2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York. He was fined $50.00 and his operator's license was revoked. The fine was paid, and the defendant has appealed his conviction.
The Assistant District Attorney, Charles W. Avery, and Peter E. Corning, attorney for the defendant, have stipulated that the only error to be reviewed is the sufficiency of the short-form information filed by Trooper Eldridge pursuant to Chapter 1-A of title 3 of part 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This Court is not asked to pass upon the legality of the use of the simplified traffic information when all the facts constituting the violation are within the personal knowledge of the peace officer signing the information.
In the instant case, it is admitted that Trooper Eldridge, who signed the information, did not have actual knowledge that the defendant was driving 72 m. p. h. This fact was supplied to him by Trooper Slocum by radio. Thus, the information was based upon information and belief, which was not so stated in the information used in this case, nor were any supporting affidavits attached thereto.
The question presented here is, can a bill of particulars filed after the simplified traffic information is laid before the magistrate, be used as supporting depositions when all the facts constituting the alleged violation are not within the personal knowledge of the peace officer filing such an information.
The rules concerning the sufficiency of the information in a criminal case also apply to a charge involving a traffic infraction. (People v. Scott, 3 N.Y.2d 148, 164 N.Y.S.2d 707, 143 N.E.2d 901; People v. Staples, 5 Misc.2d 619, 162 N.Y.S.2d 131; People v. Semonite, 18 Misc.2d 427, 189 N.Y.S.2d 256.) When all the facts constituting the violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law are not within the personal knowledge of the peace officer, then the information should so state and all necessary supporting depositions should be attached even though the information is used as a pleading instead of being the basis for the issuance of a warrant. Otherwise, the magistrate is deprived of jurisdiction and the charge should be dismissed. (People v. James, 4 N.Y.2d 482, 176 N.Y.S.2d 323, 151 N.E.2d 877; People v. Scott, supra; People v. Schwer, 7 N.Y.2d 838, 196 N.Y.S.2d 711, 164 N.E.2d 727.)
The simplified traffic information which became effective October 1, 1962, was designed to facilitate the prosecution of traffic violations. However, the fundamental rights guaranteed to an individual that he out be punished for a crime without a formal and sufficient accusation, have been passed upon by our courts many times and cannot be destroyed or ignored for the sake of expediency or convenience. (Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 47 S.Ct. 250, 71 L.Ed. 505; Weeks v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Siebenrock
...of Particulars. The Court's jurisdiction rests on the simplified Traffic Information and not the Bill of Particulars (People v. Weeks, 39 Misc.2d 765, 242 N.Y.S.2d 121 rev. on other grounds 13 N.Y.2d 944, 244 N.Y.S.2d 316, 194 N.E.2d 132). Therefore the Bill of Particulars need not meet all......
-
People v. Smalley
...limit' as marked on the information in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1180(b). Defendant relies upon People v. Weeks, 39 Misc.2d 765, 768, 242 N.Y.S.2d 121, 125, rev'd on other grounds 13 N.Y.2d 944, 244 N.Y.S.2d 316, 194 N.E.2d 132, in which the appellate court said, 'The pur......
- People v. Weeks