New York Law Review

Tag: Uniform Act

  • People v. McCartney, 38 N.Y.2d 618 (1976): Securing Out-of-State Witnesses Under the Uniform Act

    38 N.Y.2d 618 (1976)

    Under the Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Cases (CPL 640.10), a trial court’s decision to compel the attendance of an out-of-state witness is discretionary and requires the requesting party to demonstrate the materiality and necessity of the witness’s testimony.

    Summary

    McCartney pleaded guilty to robbery after his confession was deemed admissible. He appealed, arguing that he was denied his right to compulsory process when the trial court refused to compel a Maryland State trooper’s attendance at his suppression hearing. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the decision to compel an out-of-state witness under the Uniform Act is discretionary and requires a showing of materiality, which McCartney failed to demonstrate. The Court emphasized the need to balance the defendant’s right to witnesses with the potential burden on the out-of-state witness.

    Facts

    McCartney was interrogated by New York State Police in a Maryland jail. He later sought to suppress statements he made during the interrogation, claiming they were involuntary. He requested the court to compel the attendance of a Maryland State trooper, Officer Miles, who was allegedly present during the interrogation. The prosecution presented testimony from Investigator Anderson of the New York State Police who conducted the interrogation. Another New York State Police officer who was also present during defendant’s interrogation, Senior Investigator Capozzi, although available to the defendant, was not called upon to testify.

    Procedural History

    The trial court denied McCartney’s request to compel the Maryland trooper’s attendance. McCartney pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court erred in refusing to issue a certificate under CPL 640.10(3) to compel the attendance of an out-of-state witness at a pretrial suppression hearing.

    Holding

    No, because the decision to compel the attendance of an out-of-state witness is discretionary, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that the witness’s testimony was material and necessary to his case.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that while the Sixth Amendment guarantees compulsory process, it does not constitutionally require a state to compel the attendance of witnesses beyond its jurisdiction. The Uniform Act, while valid, is not constitutionally mandated. The Court emphasized that the Act should be applied uniformly across states that have adopted it, and that a key requirement for compelling an out-of-state witness is a showing of materiality. The burden of demonstrating materiality rests on the party seeking to compel attendance. The Court stated that unsupported statements of materiality are insufficient. The court stated, “Unsupported statements that the witness is material or necessary are not sufficient to require the Trial Judge to grant an application under CPL 640.10 (subd 3).”

    The court found that McCartney failed to meet this burden. He argued that discrepancies existed between the testimony of Investigator Anderson and Senior Investigator Capozzi (who testified at his brother’s hearing), but he did not point out any specific discrepancies or call Investigator Capozzi to testify at his own hearing. Moreover, the trial court found that Officer Miles was only “in and out” of the room and did not observe any significant portion of the questioning. The Court highlighted that the process of securing an out-of-state witness is “drastic” and represents an incursion on the witness’s liberty. Therefore, a trial court’s decision to deny a request under CPL 640.10(3) is discretionary and should not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. The Court concluded no abuse of discretion occurred in this case.

  • People v. Carter, 37 N.Y.2d 234 (1975): Examination of Out-of-State Witnesses on Commission

    People v. Carter, 37 N.Y.2d 234 (1975)

    A court’s decision to grant a commission to examine out-of-state witnesses is discretionary and should be exercised with great restraint, particularly when the defendant has not utilized other available means to secure the witnesses’ attendance.

    Summary

    Kenneth Carter was convicted of criminal sale of a dangerous drug. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his request for a commission to examine ten out-of-state witnesses. Carter claimed these witnesses would support his alibi defense. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the decision to issue a commission is discretionary and, in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Court emphasized the importance of live testimony and the defendant’s failure to use the Uniform Act to secure witness attendance.

    Facts

    Patrolman Hayes testified that he purchased heroin from Carter on May 10 and 11, 1971. Three other officers identified Carter as the seller. Carter presented an alibi defense, offering testimony from two grandparents that he was in Pennsylvania on those dates. Prior to trial, Carter sought a commission to examine ten witnesses in Pennsylvania, asserting they would corroborate his alibi. The motion was supported by a brief affidavit stating Carter was with these witnesses in Pennsylvania during the alleged crimes and they could not afford to travel to New York.

    Procedural History

    Carter was indicted in Queens County, New York, on June 15, 1971. He moved for a commission to examine out-of-state witnesses, which was denied. He was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s pre-trial application for a commission to examine out-of-state witnesses pursuant to CPL 680.20.

    Holding

    No, because the decision to issue a commission rests in the sound discretion of the court, and the defendant’s supporting papers provided only a conclusory summary without sufficient factual support. Furthermore, the defendant failed to utilize other available means to secure the witnesses’ attendance at trial.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court held that CPL 680.20 grants the court discretion in deciding whether to issue a commission. The moving party must provide a “brief summary of facts” supporting the claim that the out-of-state witnesses possess material information. Carter’s papers offered only a “very brief conclusional summary” lacking specific factual details. The Court stated that, even if the technical requirements of the statute are met, courts should exercise great restraint in granting such applications, doing so “only in exceptional circumstances.” The Court emphasized the importance of live testimony, where the fact-finder can assess the witness’s demeanor and credibility. The use of interrogatories restricts examination and cross-examination, and prevents the judge and jury from asking questions. Furthermore, Carter failed to utilize CPL 640.10, the Uniform Act to secure the attendance of out-of-state witnesses, which provides a statutory means to compel witnesses to attend trial. The Court rejected Carter’s argument that his constitutional rights were violated. While the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to present witnesses, this right is limited by the State’s inability to compel attendance of out-of-state witnesses without a compact. CPL 640.10 fills this gap. The Court also dismissed the equal protection argument, noting that the Uniform Act provides for payment of witness fees and mileage.