You are here: / / 19-Year Preindictment Delay Okay; Prior Incidents of Domestic Violence...
,

19-Year Preindictment Delay Okay; Prior Incidents of Domestic Violence Probative of Motive, Intent and Identity; Admissions Are Direct, Not Circumstantial, Evidence

A 19-year preindictment delay did not violate defendant’s speedy trial and due process rights. The charge was murder. The defendant was at liberty until indicted. The People established good cause for the delay in that the case was not ready to bring to a grand jury until the statements of three witnesses and DNA test results were obtained. The Fourth Department held that there was no need for a Singer hearing to determine the reason for the delay because there was no issue of fact with respect to the cause of the delay and the record provided County Court with a sufficient basis to determine whether the delay was justified. The admission of prior incidents of domestic violence against the victim (defendant’s wife) was proper because the evidence was probative of defendant’s motive, intent and identity. The defendant was not entitled to a circumstantial evidence charge because the admissions he made about killing his wife constituted direct evidence. People v Rogers, 1425, KA 11-00012 4th Dept. 2-1-13

 

 

You might also like
POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Suppression Ruling Reversed—Pat Down Search Justified for Officer Safety​
General Question Whether Defendant Was “A Law Abiding Person” Violated Sandoval Ruling and Required Reversal.
Plaintiff Did Not Raise Question of Fact About Whether Municipality Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect and Was Affirmatively Negligent
ACQUISITION OF CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA, PLACING DEFENDANT NEAR THE MURDER SCENE, DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS, FINDING THAT THE PEOPLE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AT THE TIME THE PEOPLE INDICATED THEY WERE READY FOR TRIAL; THE DISMISSAL ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE PEOPLE SO THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER STARTED RUNNING RENDERING THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL TIMELY; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER “DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES” DOCUMENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT POSSESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
Conviction Overturned for the Second Time Because of Misconduct by the Same Prosecutor

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A Shooting Victim’s Negligence and Public Nuisance Actions Against the Manufacturer,... Liability for Providing Alcohol to Under-Age Purchaser Only Triggered by Injury...