Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,<BR> v. <BR>Herbert W. Peters, Defendant.

CONNOR, J.

Burns F. Barford, Jr., for defendant. John N. McLaren, District Attorney, for plaintiff. CONNOR, J. This is a motion made under section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows: "In a criminal action the defendant is entitled 1. To a speedy and public trial". And under the further provision contained in section 668 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as follows: "If a defendant, indicted for a crime whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, be not brought to trial at the next term of the court in which the indictment is triable, after it is found the court may, on application of the defendant, order the indictment to be dismissed, unless good cause to the contrary be shown." The defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Columbia County in September of 1947. Thereafter the indictment was by order of the Supreme Court removed to the County Court of the County of Columbia. At the time that the order of removal was made, the defendant was confined to a State farm in Massachusetts, having been sentenced in the Essex Superior Court at Lawrence, Massachusetts, to serve from three to five years. Thereafter a bench warrant was duly filed by the District Attorney's office of this county, and forwarded to the State farm at Massachusetts with a request that the District Attorney's office be notified previous to the expiration of his confinement. There had been previously filed with the Essex Superior Court a ruling in the Miro case (supra) and hold that the defendant, who has been continuously confined in prisons without the State of New York, cannot now complain that because of said confinements he was not granted a speedy trial within the State to which he could not have been brought except upon the consent of both the defendant and the confining State. The motion to dismiss the indictment is denied.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

People v. Peters
(Jan 4, 1951)