New York Law Review

Tag: People ex rel. Maxian v. Gold

  • People ex rel. Maxian v. Gold, 684 N.E.2d 959 (N.Y. 1997): Sufficiency of Misdemeanor Complaints with Corroborated Charges

    People ex rel. Maxian v. Gold, 89 N.Y.2d 1033, 684 N.E.2d 959, 657 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1997)

    Under New York Criminal Procedure Law, a defendant is not improperly held solely on the basis of hearsay allegations if an accusatory instrument contains at least one count that satisfies the requirements of an information and could be the basis for prosecution.

    Summary

    Maxian was arrested and arraigned on two accusatory instruments, each containing multiple charges, some corroborated by non-hearsay allegations and at least one uncorroborated charge. He filed habeas corpus petitions seeking release under CPL 170.70, arguing that the People failed to corroborate every charge within five days of his confinement. The Supreme Court denied the petitions, finding that because at least one count in each complaint was adequately supported, Maxian’s detention was lawful. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that CPL 170.70 is meant to prevent prolonged detention based solely on hearsay, and since each instrument contained a valid charge, the statute’s purpose was satisfied.

    Facts

    Relator Maxian was arraigned on two accusatory instruments containing numerous charges. Some charges within each instrument were supported by non-hearsay allegations. Each instrument included at least one charge that was not corroborated by non-hearsay allegations.
    Maxian sought release under CPL 170.70, arguing failure to corroborate each charge within five days.

    Procedural History

    Maxian filed habeas corpus petitions in Supreme Court, which were denied.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s denial.
    The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant is improperly held solely on the basis of hearsay allegations, pursuant to CPL 170.70, when an accusatory instrument contains multiple charges, some corroborated and some uncorroborated, and at least one charge satisfies the requirements of an information under CPL 100.15 and 100.40(1).

    Holding

    No, because CPL 170.70 is designed to prevent prolonged detention based solely on hearsay allegations, and if at least one count in the accusatory instrument satisfies the requirements of an information and can serve as the basis for prosecution, the statute’s purpose is met.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that CPL 170.70 was designed to ensure that defendants are not held in custody for more than a brief period based on hearsay allegations. The court emphasized that the statute requires release only when a misdemeanor complaint is pending without any information having been filed.
    In this case, each accusatory instrument satisfied the requirements of an information because at least one count in each instrument was supported by non-hearsay allegations. As such, each instrument, from its inception, could have served as the basis for prosecuting a criminal action.
    The court quoted CPL 100.15 and 100.40(1), noting that they define the facial sufficiency of an information or a count thereof. Since Maxian was not held solely on hearsay allegations, the court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions.