From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Clemente

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 1989
150 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

May 22, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

The court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, which charged him with murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third and fourth degrees, based on a denial of the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. In People v Taranovich ( 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445), five factors were set out to be considered in determining whether that right has been violated: "(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay". Initially, we note that the extent of the delay in this case was approximately 14 months. This was not an extraordinarily long time, given the seriousness of the charge, which, by necessity, requires careful preparation (see, e.g., People v Taranovich, supra, at 446; People v Rodriguez, 81 A.D.2d 840, 841). Moreover, the defendant is free on bail, and will remain at liberty. Much of the delay is attributable to the fact that the People have been experiencing difficulty in locating eyewitnesses to the crime. The need to secure witnesses is a valid reason for delay (see, Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514; People v Rodriguez, supra). Moreover, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that his defense has been prejudiced by the delay. The defendant's further claim that he has been prejudiced by virtue of the fact that a witness favorable to him has left the State, does not establish prejudice as defendant has not alleged when this witness disappeared. The witness may have left at some point before the speedy trial issue arose. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Clemente

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 1989
150 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Clemente

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. VICTOR CLEMENTE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 22, 1989

Citations

150 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
541 N.Y.S.2d 583

Citing Cases

People v. Clemente

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tammy Linn of counsel), for respondent.Opinion Application by the defendant,…

People v. Clemente

DECISION & ORDER Application by the defendant, inter alia, for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the…