People v. Van Sickle, 13 N.Y.2d 61 (1963)

A District Attorney’s duty to prosecute crimes does not require personal presence at every hearing; prosecution of petty offenses can be delegated to other public officers or private attorneys, provided the District Attorney retains ultimate responsibility and awareness.

Summary

The defendant was convicted of speeding after a trial in the Blooming Grove Town Court, prosecuted by the same State Trooper who issued the ticket. The defendant argued that only the District Attorney’s office could prosecute the case. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction, prompting this appeal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that while the District Attorney has the ultimate responsibility for prosecutions, they can delegate the prosecution of petty offenses, like traffic infractions, to other officers such as the State Trooper in this case, provided the District Attorney remains aware of such prosecutions. The court emphasized that County Law § 700(1) does not mandate the District Attorney’s personal presence at every hearing.

Facts

A State Trooper observed the defendant driving 76 mph on State Route 17, leading to a speeding ticket.
The defendant appeared in Blooming Grove Town Court and discussed a plea agreement with the Trooper.
The defendant wanted to plead guilty to a defective speedometer charge, but the Trooper only offered a lesser speeding charge.
The defendant rejected the offer, and the case proceeded to trial.
The Trooper prosecuted the case over the defendant’s objection that only the District Attorney could prosecute.

Procedural History

The Blooming Grove Town Court convicted the defendant of speeding.
The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reviewed the Appellate Term’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether County Law § 700(1) requires the District Attorney’s personal presence or representation by an Assistant District Attorney at the prosecution of a traffic infraction, or whether a State Trooper, as the complaining witness, may prosecute the infraction.

Holding

No, because County Law § 700(1) does not mandate the District Attorney’s personal presence at every criminal hearing, and the prosecution of petty crimes or offenses may be delegated to other public officers, provided the District Attorney retains ultimate responsibility and awareness.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court relied on County Law § 700(1), which outlines the District Attorney’s duty to conduct prosecutions for crimes and offenses within their county.
However, the Court clarified that this statute doesn’t necessitate the District Attorney’s personal presence at every criminal hearing. “It is well settled, however, that this statute does not require the District Attorney’s personal presence at every criminal hearing in a county, and the prosecution of petty crimes or offenses may be delegated to subordinates and other public or administrative officers and even to private attorneys”.
The Court cited precedent, including People v. DeLeyden and People v. Czajka, where prosecutions by Deputy Sheriffs and Deputy Town Attorneys, respectively, were deemed permissible.
The Court emphasized that District Attorneys retain the “ultimate, nondelegable responsibility” for prosecuting crimes, but they can allow appearances by other public officers or private attorneys, as long as they remain aware of all criminal prosecutions in the county. “District Attorneys, of course, retain the ultimate, nondelegable responsibility for prosecuting all crimes and offenses, but they may allow appearances by public officers or private attorneys so long as they are kept aware of all the criminal prosecutions in the county”.
The Court found the defendant’s remaining arguments to be without merit, affirming the Appellate Term’s order and upholding the conviction.