New York Law Review

Tag: Simplified Information

  • People v. Carson, 10 N.Y.3d 433 (2008): Timeliness of Request for Supporting Deposition

    People v. Carson, 10 N.Y.3d 433 (2008)

    A defendant charged with a simplified information may request a supporting deposition before the return date listed on the appearance ticket, as long as the request is made before entering a guilty plea or the commencement of trial, and within thirty days of the return date.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant could request a supporting deposition before the return date on an appearance ticket for a speeding violation. The defendant was ticketed and, the next day, submitted a not guilty plea and a request for a supporting deposition to the Town Court. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s request was timely because the statute does not prevent a defendant from requesting a supporting deposition before the return date on the appearance ticket, provided it is done before pleading guilty or the start of trial and within 30 days of the return date.

    Facts

    Defendant was issued a speeding ticket directing him to appear in Webster Town Court on May 14, 2002. The ticket included instructions on how to plead not guilty by mail, including a notice that the defendant was entitled to a supporting deposition if requested within 30 days of the appearance date. The defendant completed the form, indicated he wanted a supporting deposition, and hand-delivered it to the Town Court clerk the day after receiving the ticket. The clerk accepted the plea and request and rescheduled the court date to May 1, 2002. At the arraignment on May 1, the defendant reiterated his not guilty plea and request. He received the supporting deposition on May 31, 2002.

    Procedural History

    The defendant moved to dismiss the information, arguing that the supporting deposition was untimely because it was served more than 30 days after his initial request on April 22, 2002. The Town Court denied the motion, interpreting the law to mean the defendant could not request the deposition before the return date. The County Court, Appellate Term, reversed, concluding the request was timely on April 22, making the May 31 service untimely. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant charged with a simplified information can make a “timely request” for a supporting deposition before the return date listed on the appearance ticket.

    Holding

    Yes, because nothing in CPL 100.25 or elsewhere prohibits a request prior to this return date so long as the defendant has not pleaded guilty and trial has not started.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 100.25(2) does not compel a defendant to wait until arraignment to request a supporting deposition. The statute allows a request when a defendant is “charged by a simplified information,” and the defendant was charged when ticketed. The Court noted that the defendant satisfied all conditions for a timely request because he asked for the deposition before pleading guilty or commencement of trial, and within 30 days of the date he was directed to appear in court. The court interpreted CPL 100.25(3) and (4) as defining the outside time limit for making a request, not prohibiting earlier requests. The court emphasized that the statute aims to ensure a defendant has enough information to prepare a defense, and there is no logical reason to bar a defendant from seeking this information promptly. “[W]hile a defendant cannot ask for a supporting deposition later than 30 days after the return date on the appearance ticket, nothing in CPL 100.25 or elsewhere prohibits a request prior to this return date so long as the defendant has not pleaded guilty and trial has not started.” The court also referenced the legislative history where the statute was amended to replace “arraigned upon” with “charged by”.

  • People v. Nuccio, 78 N.Y.2d 102 (1991): Reprosecution After Dismissal of Simplified Information

    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.