Home/New York Court of Appeals/People v. Minicone

People v. Minicone

270 N.E.2d 300, 28 N.Y.2d 279, 321 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1376
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 15, 1971
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 270 N.E.2d 300 (People v. Minicone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Minicone, 270 N.E.2d 300, 28 N.Y.2d 279, 321 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1376 (N.Y. 1971).

Opinions

Bergan, J.

A delay of almost four years between the indictment of defendants on September 28, 1965 and their trial June 17, 1969, at which they were convicted of assault, second degree, and maiming, has effectively deprived them of their constitutional and statutory right to a prompt trial (Civil Rights Law, § 12; Code Grim. Pro., § 8, subd. 1; People v. Prosser, 309 N. Y. 353). Prosecutions in State courts are now governed by Sixth Amendment requirements for expedient trial (Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213).

Although the People show excuse for some of the delay attributable to pretrial procedures in which defendants must be deemed to have acquiesced, there are very long periods of [281]*281delay which are substantially left unexplained in the record. One of these periods is from February 16, 1967 to January 2, 1968. Another and even longer period is from January 10, 1968 until April 18, 1969, when the motion to dismiss was made.

The case is distinguishable, therefore, from People v. Ganci (27 N Y 2d 418) where there was a delay of 16 months which was attributable to the limitations on court facilities in spite of the consistent readiness of the People to try the case.

But even there two of the Judges of the court were of opinion that the lack of public trial facilities was not good enough a ground to excuse the 16-month delay (p. 430) and the period there considered seems to have approached the excusable limit of delay attributable to the absence of public trial facilities.

The obligation is on the prosecutor to move the trial promptly and no demand by the accused is required to actuate this obligation (People v. Prosser, 309 N. Y. 353, supra; People v. Masselli, 13 N Y 2d 1, 6; People v. Darrah, 29 A D 2d 816).

What is an unreasonable delay is a question of degree affected by the circumstances of the particular case. Long delays in the prosecution of criminal cases not only affect adversely the rights of the individual accused but have consequences which reflect on the efficiency and fairness of the criminal law.

Both the Federal courts (Dickey v. Florida, 398 U. S. 30; Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213, supra) and the courts of New York (People v. Winfrey, 20 N Y 2d 138; People v. Bryant, 12 N Y 2d 719; People v. Piscitello, 7 N Y 2d 387; People v. Racassi, 32 A D 2d 928) have been tightening the requirement that criminal prosecutions move expeditiously.

The present case may usefully be compared with People v. Bryant (12 N Y 2d, at p. 720) where a two-year delay for which the People had “failed to establish good cause” was deemed “ prima facie unreasonable ”.

The judgment should be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Garrett
146 Misc. 2d 919 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
People v. Foster
135 Misc. 2d 73 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1987)
People v. Mason
125 A.D.2d 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Brown
117 A.D.2d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Attie
131 Misc. 2d 921 (New York City Court, 1986)
People v. Cousart
444 N.E.2d 971 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. Cullen
99 Misc. 2d 646 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
People v. Daforno
59 A.D.2d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
People v. Hankins
52 A.D.2d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
People v. Mollette
87 Misc. 2d 236 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
People v. Ranellucci
50 A.D.2d 105 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
People v. Johnson
342 N.E.2d 525 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
People v. Gandhi
84 Misc. 2d 231 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)
People v. Taranovich
335 N.E.2d 303 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
People ex rel. Walker v. Cleary
82 Misc. 2d 170 (New York County Courts, 1975)
Commonwealth v. Williams
327 A.2d 15 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
People v. Dixon
74 Misc. 2d 319 (New York County Courts, 1973)
Holland v. State
480 S.W.2d 597 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1972)
United States v. Baron
336 F. Supp. 303 (S.D. New York, 1971)
People v. Minicone
272 N.E.2d 584 (New York Court of Appeals, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 N.E.2d 300, 28 N.Y.2d 279, 321 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-minicone-ny-1971.