People v. Nuccio, 78 N.Y.2d 102 (1991)
The dismissal of a simplified traffic information for failure to provide a supporting deposition does not bar subsequent prosecution of the same charges via a long-form information.
Summary
Nuccio was initially charged with driving while intoxicated via a simplified traffic information. After the prosecution failed to provide supporting depositions as requested, the trial court dismissed the information. The prosecution then filed a long-form information for the same offenses. The New York Court of Appeals held that the dismissal of the simplified information did not bar subsequent prosecution via the long-form information because the Criminal Procedure Law does not prohibit such reprosecution, and the legislative history indicates an intent to allow it for non-felony charges dismissed for legal insufficiency.
Facts
Defendant Nuccio was charged with driving while intoxicated and other traffic infractions via a simplified traffic information.
At arraignment, Nuccio requested supporting depositions from the People.
The People failed to provide the requested depositions.
Based on the failure to provide supporting depositions, the trial court dismissed the simplified information.
On the same day, the People filed a long-form information, executed by the arresting officer, charging the same offenses.
Procedural History
The trial court denied Nuccio’s motion to dismiss the new long-form information.
Nuccio pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and failure to keep right.
On appeal, the County Court reversed the convictions and dismissed the information, holding that reprosecution was barred by the prior dismissal.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s order and reinstated the original judgment of conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether charges in a local criminal court may be prosecuted by a sufficient long-form information after a prior simplified information, charging the same offenses, has been dismissed for failure to supply the supporting depositions required by CPL 100.25 (2).
Holding
Yes, because the Criminal Procedure Law does not prohibit it, and the legislative history suggests the legislature intentionally omitted a bar to reprosecution for non-felony charges dismissed for legal insufficiency.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that at common law, a prosecutor was not barred from resubmitting charges unless double jeopardy applied. The Legislature has regulated criminal procedure, sometimes limiting the People’s power to resubmit charges to prevent prosecutorial abuses. The court noted the distinction between the treatment of indictments and informations in the Criminal Procedure Law. Specifically, the provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting reprosecution were transferred to CPL 210.20 (4), a section dealing exclusively with the dismissal of an indictment, without a similar provision prohibiting the reprosecution of charges contained in a dismissed information. The court stated, “We conclude, therefore, that the different treatment accorded indictments and informations in the statute manifests the Legislature’s intention to permit reprosecution for nonfelony charges when the information is dismissed for legal insufficiency.” Further, double jeopardy was not a bar because “reprosecution is permitted whenever a dismissal has been granted on motion by defendant, so long as the dismissal does not constitute an adjudication on the facts going to guilt or innocence.” The simplified information was dismissed for legal insufficiency, not based on an adjudication of guilt or innocence.