![]() ![]() In such cases, the court must be vigilant in safeguarding the defendant's rights to a bill of particulars and to effective discovery." ![]() This is especially so where the indictment itself provides a paucity of information. Here's the money quote: "Any effort to leave a defendant in ignorance of the substance of the accusation until the time of trial must be firmly rebuffed. ![]() ![]() So an indictment may still be a fairly simple description of the law the defendant is alleged to have violated and the conduct which constituted the violation, but the right to a bill of particulars is considered the antidote to a vague indictment. The CPL codified the Bill of Particulars rules (CPL 200.95). Under the Code an indictment did not provide much information to a defendant, but the Court of Appeals found that the defects in the simplified indictment were alleviated by the fact a defendant could demand a bill of particulars, which was a right under common law but not codified. One reason for the change was that the indictment under the Code "often told the accused little about the nature of the crime he was accused of committing." Then along came the CPL which replaced the Code. The indictment requirements were simplified - the Code only required a description of the section of the law a defendant was alleged to have violated. Then along came the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1881. The Court noted that under common law (before the Code of Criminal Procedure which preceded the Criminal Procedure Law) "the indictment was an arcane and intricate work of art which all too often served to mystify rather than to inform defendants." (When the acts vary from what the Grand Jury indicted on, that is called.you guessed it.variance!)Īnother purpose of the indictment as addressed in Iannone is the "proper means of indicating just what crime or crimes defendant has been tried for, in order to avoid subsequent attempts to retry him for the same crime or crimes (cite omitted)." (Think: double jeopardy) The Court continued by recognizing that another traditional function of the indictment has been to provide some means of ensuring that the crime for which the defendant is brought to trial is in fact one for which he was indicted by the Grand Jury, rather than some alternative seized upon by the prosecution in light of subsequently discovered evidence. Achievement of this purpose historically involved both a legal and a factual statement: normally the indictment has been required to both charge all the legally material elements of the crime of which defendant is accused, and state that defendant in fact committed the acts which comprise those elements." This function of the indictment is founded not upon the right to indictment by a Grand Jury, but rather on the notice requirement of section 6 of article I of our State Constitution and presumably that of the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as well. "First and foremost, an indictment has been considered as the necessary method of providing the defendant with fair notice of the accusations made against him, so that he will be able to prepare a defense. The Court noted that an indictment has traditionally served several purposes. The Court stated in Iannone, "The requirement of indictment by Grand Jury is intended to prevent the people of this State from potentially oppressive excesses by the agents of the government in the exercise of the prosecutorial authority vested in the state (cite omitted)." No particular form is constitutionally mandated. The right to be prosecuted by indictment is guaranteed by section 6 of article 1 of the NY State Constitution. 2d 589 (1978) the Court of Appeals reviewed the history of the use and purpose of indictments. To understand the need for a bill of particulars it helps to first review the history of indictments in New York: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |