PEOPLE , & C., APPELLANT, v. RICHARD SIGISMUNDI, RESPONDENT.
89 N.Y.2d 587, 679 N.E.2d 620, 657 N.Y.S.2d 381 (1997).
March 27, 1997
1 No. 39 (1997 NY Int. 45)
Decided March 27, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Morrie I. Kleinbart, for Appellant.
Glenn A. Garber, for Respondent.
TITONE, J.:
Does the former version of CPL 30.30(4)(c)1 require the People to
exercise due diligence to locate an absent defendant when that
defendant is incarcerated within a correctional facility within the
State under an assumed name? We conclude that such diligence is not
required when the facts and circumstances, including the accused's use
of one or more aliases, indicate an intention to avoid prosecution.
Defendant was arrested on September 4, 1993 and arraigned on September
5, 1993 under the name Richard Sigismundi. The NYSID report that was
generated as a result of that arrest indicated that defendant had
previously used several aliases. Having been released on his own
recognizance, defendant was again arrested on September 17, 1993. This
time, he gave his name as Richard Cali, one of the aliases that he had
used in the past. Upon defendant's second arrest, the law enforcement
authorities obtained a different NYSID report that was maintained in
the name of Richard Cali. This report did not include a record of the
September 4th arrest. Following his second arrest, defendant remained
incarcerated locally until he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a
2-to-4-year term of imprisonment on March 23, 1994.
In the meantime, the charges arising out of the September 4th arrest
remained pending. A Grand Jury issued an indictment on those charges
on November 18, 1993 and, upon defendant's failure to appear for
arraignment on the indictment, a bench warrant for his arrest was
issued on December 27, 1993. It was not until June 29, 1994 that a
warrant coordinator from the District Attorney's office discovered
that defendant had mistakenly been given two different NYSID numbers.
As a result of that discovery, the People were able to locate
defendant. Defendant was finally returned on the December 27th bench
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Glenn A. Garber, for Respondent.
Does the former version of CPL 30.301 require the People to exercise due diligence to locate
We conclude that such diligence is not required when the facts and circumstances, including
Defendant was arrested on September 4, 1993 and arraigned on September 5, 1993 under the name
Upon defendant's second arrest, the law enforcement authorities obtained a different NYSID
Following his second arrest, defendant remained incarcerated locally until he pleaded guilty
A Grand Jury issued an indictment on those charges on November 18, 1993 and, upon defendant's
Supreme Court rejected the People's contention and dismissed the indictment for prosecutorial
On the People's appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the indictment, with
The majority agreed with the Supreme Court's view that defendant was not at a location
Relying on our decision in People v Bolden (81 NY2d 146), the majority concluded that the
We agree with the rationale of the dissenters and, accordingly, we now reverse.
A defendant must be considered absent whenever his location is unknown and he is attempting
In People v Bolden, this Court held that in order to obtain an exclusion under the
Faced squarely with the question for the first time, we hold that the People can establish a
We stress that our holding excusing the People from their "due diligence" responsibility in
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the indictment
|
