From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Minicone

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 15, 1971
28 N.Y.2d 279 (N.Y. 1971)

Summary

In People v. Minicone, 28 N.Y.2d 279, 321 N.Y.S.2d 570 (1971), in considering the constitutional right to a speedy trial it was held that the obligation is on the prosecutor to move promptly and no demand by the accused is required to actuate this obligation.

Summary of this case from Holland v. State

Opinion

Argued January 20, 1971

Decided April 15, 1971

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, JOHN C. MARBACH, J.

Roy M. Cohn and Irving Anolik for appellants.

Carl A. Vergari, District Attorney ( James J. Duggan of counsel), for respondent.


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 Crim. 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 delay 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.


As one who is sensitive to the necessity for the prompt and effective prosecution of those charged with crime, I reluctantly agree to reverse.

Although unreasonable delays in prosecution are looked upon with the greatest disfavor, the absence of a showing of good cause for the delay, without more, cannot be equated with fault.


By constraint and with the greatest reluctance — based on the very long period of delay — I agree to reverse.

The District Attorney has a well-determined responsibility for bringing to trial or other disposition all criminal cases. Indeed, it is his unquestioned duty to observe the constitutional mandate guaranteeing a defendant a speedy trial, and no less to protect the People's interest in the expeditious prosecution of the guilty.

At a time when those concerned with the administration of criminal justice are attempting to expedite all criminal proceedings, the insufficiently explained 45-month delay in bringing the defendants to trial is intolerable.

Chief Judge FULD and Judge GIBSON concur with Judge BERGAN; Judge SCILEPPI concurs in a memorandum, and Judge JASEN concurs in result in a separate memorandum in which Judge BREITEL concurs; Judge BURKE taking no part.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. Minicone

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 15, 1971
28 N.Y.2d 279 (N.Y. 1971)

In People v. Minicone, 28 N.Y.2d 279, 321 N.Y.S.2d 570 (1971), in considering the constitutional right to a speedy trial it was held that the obligation is on the prosecutor to move promptly and no demand by the accused is required to actuate this obligation.

Summary of this case from Holland v. State

In People v Minicone (28 N.Y.2d 279) it was held that a 45-month delay was more prejudicial than the 16-month in the Ganci case where limitation on court facilities was considered a valid excuse.

Summary of this case from People v. Hankins

In People v. Minicone (28 N.Y.2d 279, 281), the court took note of the present shameful situation when it said: "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."

Summary of this case from People ex Rel. Cordero v. Thomas
Case details for

People v. Minicone

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH MINICONE and…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 15, 1971

Citations

28 N.Y.2d 279 (N.Y. 1971)
321 N.Y.S.2d 570
270 N.E.2d 300

Citing Cases

People v. Johnson

The speedy trial guaranteed by statute and the Federal Constitution serves three primary purposes: "It…

People v. Hankins

In People v Ganci ( 27 N.Y.2d 418) it was held that a 16-month delay, where there is calendar congestion and…