Indictment Dismissed Because of Delayed Prosecution
The question on appeal was whether the complainant’s 32-day vacation constituted an “exceptional circumstance” that was therefore not chargeable to the People under the speedy trial statute, which allotted them six months to bring the case to trial. The 32-day period was dispositive in this case: if it was excluded from the speedy trial allotment, the trial was timely. If not, the indictment would be dismissed. The Appellate Division held that, because the People failed to show that they attempted with “due diligence” to make the complainant available to testify during this period, it was not excludable from People’s six-month allotment. In addition, the People’s alternative argument for exclusion was unpreserved for appellate review. Therefore, the indictment was dismissed.
Joshua M. Levine briefed and argued the appeal for Appellate Advocates.