People v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mitchell

84 A.D.2d 822, 444 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16040

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 23, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 84 A.D.2d 822 (People v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Mitchell, 84 A.D.2d 822, 444 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), dated March 10, 1981, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute. Order reversed, on the law, and case remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. Criminal Term erred in summarily granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute. The prosecution claims that during most of the preindictment period, the defendant could not be located, despite diligent efforts by the police. This claim, if substantiated, would constitute good cause for the prosecution’s delay in obtaining an indictment (see People v Staley, 41 NY2d 789; People v Best, 83 AD2d 881). A hearing is required to determine whether the police, in fact, exercised due diligence in their efforts to locate the defendant. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), dated March 10, 1981, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute. Order reversed, on the law, and case remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. Criminal Term erred in summarily granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute. The prosecution claims that during most of the preindictment period, the defendant could not be located, despite diligent efforts by the police. This claim, if substantiated, would constitute good cause for the prosecution’s delay in obtaining an indictment (see People v Staley, 41 NY2d 789; People v Best, 83 AD2d 881). A hearing is required to determine whether the police, in fact, exercised due diligence in their efforts to locate the defendant. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 822, 444 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mitchell-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack