In New York, there are various levels of courts – local courts, supreme courts, appellate courts, and the Court of Appeals. The holdings by these courts develop into local rules which are not necessarily applicative in other jurisdictions.

1 appellate term court adopted a local rule whereby the District Attorney couldn't re-prosecute a defendant by filing a new simplified traffic data later the original was dismissed for facial insufficiency for failure to provide a requested supporting deposition. In People five. Epakchi, the District Attorney opposed this rule. Here, we discuss the Court of Appeals ruling on this.

What Was the Local Dominion?

In 2013, the defendant received a traffic ticket for failing to end at a stop sign. Then, she pled not guilty and requested a supporting deposition. The supporting deposition would prepare along the officer'south factual allegations for issuing the ticket. However, the officer failed to file the supporting degradation inside the time allotted by the Criminal Procedure Constabulary.

As such, the defendant moved to dismiss the ticket. Later that year, the parties appeared before a judicial hearing officeholder. The hearing officer granted the movement to dismiss. After walking out of the courtroom, the prosecutor personally served the defendant with a new simplified traffic data and a supporting deposition. The defendant moved to dismiss the new ticket, citing case law from the Appellate Term for the ninth and tenth Judicial Districts. Withal, her motility was denied. She was later convicted of the traffic infraction at trial.

On entreatment, the Appellate Term vacated the order denying the defendant's motility to dismiss, and granted the motility. The court cited its own cases requiring a trial court, in the absence of special circumstances, to dismiss a new simplified traffic information afterward a previous simplified traffic information was dismissed as insufficient on its face for failure to timely serve a requested supporting deposition.

Thus the defendant's confidence for the traffic ticket was reversed. The prosecution appealed.

Appeal of the Local Dominion

The Court of Appeals cited its ain case, People v. Nuccio. In that case, the Courtroom held the prosecution could re-prosecute a criminal charge where the prior misdemeanor data was dismissed for failure to supply the supporting depositions required. Specifically, the People could file a new data because the Criminal Procedure Constabulary didn't specifically prohibit doing so.

The Court held that a judge may dismiss a defective information, simplified information, prosecutor's information, or misdemeanor complaint, but in that location is no provision disallowment farther prosecution of the charges so dismissed. Only with indictments is re-prosecution barred where the indictment is dismissed for legal insufficiency. However, in the case of a dismissed indictment, the prosecution can seek courtroom authorization to re-file. "In sum, the Appellate Term lacks authority to create a procedural rule, requiring special circumstances for the renewed prosecution of a traffic offense afterward a previous dismissal for failure to provide a requested supporting deposition, that is inconsistent with Nuccio and the courts' dominance under the Criminal Process Law."

References:

  • People v. Epakchi, N.Y. Slip Op. 02018 (Apr. 1, 2021). Available at: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2021/Apr21/19opn21-Decision.pdf (last accessed Apr. twenty, 2021).
  • New York Criminal Procedure Law. Bachelor at: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL (concluding accessed Apr. twenty, 2021).
  • People 5. Nuccio, 78 North.Y.2nd 102 (1991). Available at: https://casetext.com/example/people-5-nuccio-1 (last accessed Apr. twenty, 2021).

Related Posts: