People v. Santos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santos

303 A.D.2d 695, 756 N.Y.S.2d 781

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 695 (People v. Santos) 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. Santos, 303 A.D.2d 695, 756 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), dated December 11, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground of preindictment delay.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground of preindictment delay is denied, and the indictment is reinstated.

Although the approximately nine-month delay between the defendant’s identification as a suspect and his arrest (see People v Papa, 143 AD2d 1058, 1059 [1988]) was to some extent unnecessary, the severity of the underlying offense, the fact that the defendant was not incarcerated on the instant charges, and the lack of any prejudice to the defendant indicate that he was not denied due process (see People v Vernace, 96 NY2d 886, 887 [2001]; People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]; People v Romero, 173 AD2d 654 [1991]). Moreover, the record indicates that the preindictment investigation of the defendant was undertaken in good faith and the delay did not cause the prosecution to gain a tactical advantage (see People v Vernace, supra at 888; People v Quiroz, 192 AD2d 730 [1993]; People v Papa, supra at 1059). Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have dismissed the indictment. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), dated December 11, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground of preindictment delay.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground of preindictment delay is denied, and the indictment is reinstated.

Although the approximately nine-month delay between the defendant’s identification as a suspect and his arrest (see People v Papa, 143 AD2d 1058, 1059 [1988]) was to some extent unnecessary, the severity of the underlying offense, the fact that the defendant was not incarcerated on the instant charges, and the lack of any prejudice to the defendant indicate that he was not denied due process (see People v Vernace, 96 NY2d 886, 887 [2001]; People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]; People v Romero, 173 AD2d 654 [1991]). Moreover, the record indicates that the preindictment investigation of the defendant was undertaken in good faith and the delay did not cause the prosecution to gain a tactical advantage (see People v Vernace, supra at 888; People v Quiroz, 192 AD2d 730 [1993]; People v Papa, supra at 1059). Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have dismissed the indictment. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 695, 756 N.Y.S.2d 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santos-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack