91 N.Y.2d 792 (1998)

A statement of readiness for trial, made before the defendant’s arraignment, is valid if the People have completed all required actions to bring the case to trial and the arraignment and trial can occur within the statutory speedy trial period.

Summary

The case addresses whether the People’s pre-arraignment statement of readiness for trial was valid under CPL 30.30. The Court of Appeals held that the statement of readiness, made when the People had done everything required to bring the case to trial, tolled the speedy trial clock, even though the defendants had not yet been arraigned. The Court emphasized that the responsibility for securing the defendant’s appearance rests with the court, not the prosecution. The Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the indictment.

Facts

A felony complaint was filed against the defendants on May 31, 1995. The People sent letters to the defendants on November 16, 1995, notifying them of their right to testify before the grand jury; however, these letters were returned undelivered. On November 22, 1995, the People filed an indictment and announced their readiness for trial in open court and again sent letters to the defendants, informing them of the indictment and their scheduled arraignment. The defendants failed to appear for arraignment, and bench warrants were issued. The defendants were eventually arraigned in December 1995 and January 1996.

Procedural History

The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the People’s readiness statement was premature because they were not present and had not been arraigned. The Judicial Hearing Officer recommended granting the motion, and the Supreme Court confirmed the recommendation. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the People’s pre-arraignment statement of readiness on November 22, 1995, was effective to toll the speedy trial clock under CPL 30.30, given that the defendants had not yet been arraigned.

Holding

Yes, because the People had done everything required of them to bring the case to trial, and the arraignment and trial could occur within the six-month speedy trial period. The delay in arraignment is attributable to the court, not the People.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals stated that, under CPL 30.30 (1)(a), the People must be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action. A statement of readiness must be communicated on the record when the People are truly ready to proceed. The Court cited People v. Goss, noting that a pre-arraignment statement of readiness can be valid where it is possible for the defendant to be arraigned and the trial to go forward within the six-month period. The Court emphasized that there is no requirement that a defendant be present to establish readiness for trial.

The Court found that the People made an effective statement of readiness by filing the indictment, announcing their readiness on the record, and attempting to notify the defendants. Absent proof that the readiness statement was inaccurate or made in bad faith, the People discharged their duty under CPL 30.30. The Court distinguished pre-readiness delay from post-readiness delay, stating that the responsibility for scheduling the arraignment and securing the defendant’s appearance lies with the court, not the People. The Court noted, “Responsibility for scheduling an arraignment date and securing a defendant’s appearance lies with the court, not the People.”

The Court distinguished People v. Bolden, which the defendants cited for the proposition that the People were required to exercise due diligence in locating them, noting that Bolden relates to pre-readiness computation of time, while this case involved a valid declaration of readiness. The Court emphasized the importance of the People’s demonstrating readiness within the statutory time frame when they have diligently taken steps to ensure the defendant’s presence, but the ultimate responsibility for arraignment rests with the court. This distinction clarifies the prosecutor’s obligations and the court’s role in managing the arraignment process after the People declare readiness.