From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dumas

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 10, 1986
68 N.Y.2d 729 (N.Y. 1986)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

noting lack of allegation that police officer was an expert in identifying marijuana or that defendant represented it as such, to support charge that defendant sold marijuana

Summary of this case from Norton v. Town of Islip
See 12 Summaries

Opinion

Argued May 30, 1986

Decided July 10, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Jay Gold, J.

Robin J. Nichinsky and Philip L. Weinstein for appellants.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Barbara A. Sheehan and Amyjane Rettew of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The orders of the Appellate Term should be reversed and the orders of the Criminal Court should be reinstated.

We agree with the Criminal Court that the misdemeanor complaints are facially insufficient.

In the Dumas case the factual portion of the complaint simply states: "Deponent is informed by an undercover police officer of the New York City Police Department, Shield Number 6938, who is known to the deponent, that defendant knowingly and unlawfully sold to informant marijuana to wit: 2 clear plastic bags of marijuana, for a sum of United States currency". The complaint in the Fausto case is similar.

The factual part of a misdemeanor complaint must allege "facts of an evidentiary character" (CPL 100.15) demonstrating "reasonable cause" to believe the defendant committed the crime charged (CPL 100.40 [b]).

In each case the complaint contains a conclusory statement that the defendant sold marihuana, but in neither case is this supported by evidentiary facts showing the basis for the conclusion that the substance sold was actually marihuana. There is, for instance, no allegation that the police officer is an expert in identifying marihuana (cf. People v Kenny, 30 N.Y.2d 154), nor any allegation that the defendant represented the substance as being marihuana. Neither are any additional facts provided by the supporting depositions in which the undercover police officer merely adopts the statements alleged in the complaints.

We note that this is not a pleading defect. The misdemeanor complaint is designed to provide the court with sufficient facts for the court to determine whether the defendant should be held for further action (People v Weinberg, 34 N.Y.2d 429). If found to be sufficient on its face, the misdemeanor complaint alone may serve as the basis for issuing an arrest warrant (CPL 120.20) and the requirement for factual allegations of an evidentiary character establishing reasonable cause should be assessed in that light.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR., concur; Judge KAYE taking no part.

Order reversed and order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, reinstated in a memorandum.

Summaries of

People v. Dumas

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 10, 1986
68 N.Y.2d 729 (N.Y. 1986)

noting lack of allegation that police officer was an expert in identifying marijuana or that defendant represented it as such, to support charge that defendant sold marijuana

Summary of this case from Norton v. Town of Islip

In People v Dumas (68 N.Y.2d 729), this Court held that a misdemeanor complaint containing a conclusory statement that the defendant sold marihuana, but unsupported by evidentiary facts showing the basis for this conclusion, was legally insufficient.

Summary of this case from Matter of Jahron S

In People v Dumas (68 NY2d 729), the Court held that an officer's training and experience, if set forth, would provide reasonable grounds to believe that the substance is the drug which the officer believes it to be (see People v Bratton, 166 Misc 2d 893, 896).

Summary of this case from People v. Delacruz

In People v Dumas (supra, 68 NY2d at 731), the Court of Appeals held that a facially sufficient complaint must plead evidentiary facts showing the basis for any conclusions set forth in the complaint, and held that a criminal court complaint was facially insufficient because it failed to allege evidentiary facts which would tend to support the conclusion that the substance sold was marihuana.

Summary of this case from People v. Ioannidis

In Dumas (68 NY2d 729 [1986]), the Court of Appeals held that in order for an accusatory instrument to sufficiently allege a marijuana offense, evidentiary facts must be pleaded that show the basis for the conclusion that a substance consisted of marijuana.

Summary of this case from People v. Pestana

In Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729, the Court of Appeals held that in order for an accusatory instrument to sufficiently allege a marijuana offense, evidentiary facts must be pleaded that show the basis for the conclusion that a substance consisted of marijuana.

Summary of this case from People v. Pestana

In Dumas (supra), the Court of Appeals held that misdemeanor complaints alleging the criminal sale and/or possession of marihuana are facially insufficient where they contain a conclusory statement that each defendant sold marihuana but fail to support that statement with evidentiary facts showing the basis for the conclusion that the substance sold (and/or possessed) was actually marihuana, since the factual part of a misdemeanor complaint must allege facts of an evidentiary character (CPL 100.15 [3]) demonstrating reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime charged (CPL 100.40 [4] [b]).

Summary of this case from People v. William

In Dumas, supra, the Court of Appeals held that misdemeanor complaints alleging the criminal sale and/or possession of marihuana are facially insufficient where they contain a conclusory statement that each defendant sold marihuana but fail to support that statement with evidentiary facts showing the basis for the conclusion that the substance sold (and/or possessed) was actually marihuana, since the factual part of a misdemeanor complaint must allege facts of an evidentiary character (CPL 100.15 (3)) demonstrating reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime charged (CPL 100.40 (4)(b)).

Summary of this case from People v. William

In Dumas the complaint contained the allegation that an undercover officer informed the complaint's deponent that the defendant had sold marihuana to the undercover officer.

Summary of this case from People v. McIntyre

In People v Dumas (68 N.Y.2d 729), the Court held that the requirement that a misdemeanor pleading allege "facts of an evidentiary character" means that the facts alleged must not be "conclusory" statements, but rather must state the basis for a person's knowledge of the fact asserted.

Summary of this case from People v. Bratton

In People v Dumas (68 N.Y.2d 729) the Court of Appeals held that a misdemeanor complaint charging sale and possession of marihuana was properly dismissed as insufficient under CPL 100.15 (3) and 100.40 (4) (b) because it failed to allege "evidentiary facts" to support the police officer's conclusion that the substance sold by defendant was actually marihuana.

Summary of this case from People v. Campbell

In Dumas, the bare conclusions by the police officers that the substances sold by the defendants were marihuana, standing alone, were insufficient.

Summary of this case from People v. Paul
Case details for

People v. Dumas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT L. DUMAS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 10, 1986

Citations

68 N.Y.2d 729 (N.Y. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. N. Shore Design, Inc.

Consequently, the District Court properly found that defendant had no standing and denied its motion to…

People v. Lamendola

and, in any event, more than 90 days of delay were chargeable to the People; that evidence of his written…

721 Citing Cases