People v. Cammarano, 83 N.Y.2d 925 (1994)
A court may dismiss an indictment in the interest of justice based in part on the defendant’s medical condition, even without expert medical evidence, provided the decision is not solely based on speculation and the court relies on considerable information, including observations and documented participation in treatment programs.
Summary
Defendant was indicted for selling heroin to undercover officers. He moved to dismiss the indictments in the interest of justice, citing his HIV infection and participation in AIDS and drug treatment programs. The trial court granted the motion, relying partly on its observations of the defendant’s deteriorating health. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, even without medical documentation, because the decision wasn’t based solely on the defendant’s condition, and the court relied on other factors, including documented program participation and its own observations.
Facts
The defendant was charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
These charges stemmed from two instances in October 1989 where the defendant sold a small amount of heroin to undercover police officers.
In May 1991, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictments in the interest of justice, citing his HIV infection, participation in AIDS and drug treatment programs, lack of prior criminal record, and that he committed the crimes to support his own addiction.
The defendant did not provide any medical documentation of his condition or prognosis.
The trial court observed that the defendant had physically deteriorated, barely able to stand.
Procedural History
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictments.
The People appealed, arguing that it was improper for the trial court to base the dismissal on its own observations of the defendant’s health without medical documentation.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
A dissenting Justice granted the People leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a court abuses its discretion as a matter of law when dismissing an indictment in the interest of justice, based in part on the defendant’s medical condition and observations of the defendant’s deterioration, without requiring expert medical evidence or documentation.
Holding
No, because the motion court would have been entitled to exercise its discretion to hold a hearing and require submission of additional documentation regarding defendant’s medical condition and prognosis, it was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law on these facts to grant the motion in the absence of such evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated its review was limited to whether the dismissal was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
The Court found that the motion to dismiss was not based solely on the defendant’s medical condition; the court considered other factors, including the defendant’s participation in treatment programs.
The Court emphasized that the trial court did not engage in mere speculation but relied on the undisputed fact that the defendant was HIV infected, his documented participation in an AIDS research treatment program, and its observations of the defendant’s physical deterioration.
The Court declined to impose an absolute rule requiring expert medical evidence for an interest of justice dismissal based partly on a defendant’s medical condition.
The court stated, “Thus, we decline to impose any absolute rule that an interest of justice dismissal of an indictment based in part on a defendant’s medical condition must always be supported by expert medical evidence or documentation.”
The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order because there was no abuse of discretion.