People v. Carter, 37 N.Y.2d 234 (1975)
A court’s decision to grant a commission to examine out-of-state witnesses is discretionary and should be exercised with great restraint, particularly when the defendant has not utilized other available means to secure the witnesses’ attendance.
Summary
Kenneth Carter was convicted of criminal sale of a dangerous drug. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his request for a commission to examine ten out-of-state witnesses. Carter claimed these witnesses would support his alibi defense. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the decision to issue a commission is discretionary and, in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Court emphasized the importance of live testimony and the defendant’s failure to use the Uniform Act to secure witness attendance.
Facts
Patrolman Hayes testified that he purchased heroin from Carter on May 10 and 11, 1971. Three other officers identified Carter as the seller. Carter presented an alibi defense, offering testimony from two grandparents that he was in Pennsylvania on those dates. Prior to trial, Carter sought a commission to examine ten witnesses in Pennsylvania, asserting they would corroborate his alibi. The motion was supported by a brief affidavit stating Carter was with these witnesses in Pennsylvania during the alleged crimes and they could not afford to travel to New York.
Procedural History
Carter was indicted in Queens County, New York, on June 15, 1971. He moved for a commission to examine out-of-state witnesses, which was denied. He was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s pre-trial application for a commission to examine out-of-state witnesses pursuant to CPL 680.20.
Holding
No, because the decision to issue a commission rests in the sound discretion of the court, and the defendant’s supporting papers provided only a conclusory summary without sufficient factual support. Furthermore, the defendant failed to utilize other available means to secure the witnesses’ attendance at trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that CPL 680.20 grants the court discretion in deciding whether to issue a commission. The moving party must provide a “brief summary of facts” supporting the claim that the out-of-state witnesses possess material information. Carter’s papers offered only a “very brief conclusional summary” lacking specific factual details. The Court stated that, even if the technical requirements of the statute are met, courts should exercise great restraint in granting such applications, doing so “only in exceptional circumstances.” The Court emphasized the importance of live testimony, where the fact-finder can assess the witness’s demeanor and credibility. The use of interrogatories restricts examination and cross-examination, and prevents the judge and jury from asking questions. Furthermore, Carter failed to utilize CPL 640.10, the Uniform Act to secure the attendance of out-of-state witnesses, which provides a statutory means to compel witnesses to attend trial. The Court rejected Carter’s argument that his constitutional rights were violated. While the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to present witnesses, this right is limited by the State’s inability to compel attendance of out-of-state witnesses without a compact. CPL 640.10 fills this gap. The Court also dismissed the equal protection argument, noting that the Uniform Act provides for payment of witness fees and mileage.