From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Belgrave

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

In People v Belgrave (226 A.D.2d 550 [2d Dept 1996]), the Second Department held that an exceptional circumstance exclusion was warranted where, unbeknownst to the prosecutor, the complainants and their parents left the country for vacation and were thus unavailable to testify before the Grand Jury.

Summary of this case from People v. Flores

Opinion

April 15, 1996

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based upon the alleged deprivation of his right to a "speedy trial" (CPL 30.30), the court properly excluded a period of time during which the parents of the infant complainants were out of the country and thus unavailable to appear for a Grand Jury proceeding ( see, CPL 30.30 [g]).

The record reveals that in light of a scheduled Grand Jury proceeding, the prosecutor called the complainants' parents and left a message on their answering machine indicating that they were needed to testify at the Grand Jury. When the prosecutor received no response, she made further inquiries and ascertained that the complainants and their family had left the country for a vacation in Trinidad. The prosecutor, who had no prior knowledge of the vacation, then left another telephone message and also sent the parents a letter instructing them to contact her as soon as they returned. When the parents returned, the complainants' mother contacted the prosecutor and the Grand Jury proceeding was conducted shortly thereafter. We find that the witness' absence constituted an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4)(g) ( cf., People v. Khan, 146 A.D.2d 806). Moreover, the prosecutor's conduct in attempting to secure their attendance satisfied the due diligence requirement of the statute ( see, People v. Khan, supra; see also, People v. Zirpola, 57 N.Y.2d 706, 708; CPL 30.30 [g] [i]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Belgrave

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

In People v Belgrave (226 A.D.2d 550 [2d Dept 1996]), the Second Department held that an exceptional circumstance exclusion was warranted where, unbeknownst to the prosecutor, the complainants and their parents left the country for vacation and were thus unavailable to testify before the Grand Jury.

Summary of this case from People v. Flores

In Belgrave, the witness had neglected to inform the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) that she was going away on vacation despite the ADA's diligent efforts to secure the witness's attendance by making several telephone calls, leaving voice messages and sending letters to the witness's address.

Summary of this case from People v. Rahoman

In Belgrave, the witness had neglected to inform the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) that she was going away on vacation despite the ADA's diligent efforts to secure the witness's attendance by making several telephone calls, leaving voice messages and sending letters to the witness's address.

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

People v. Belgrave

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. REGINALD BELGRAVE…

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

Date published: Apr 15, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 96

Citing Cases

People v. Stanley

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from. The People failed to demonstrate that the…

People v. Rahoman

The People must show: (1) that the witness is material to their case; (2) that they exercised due diligence…