Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PEOPLE STATE NEW YORK v. TOM ROWLANDS (04/28/69)

COUNTY COURT OF NEW YORK, ONONDAGA COUNTY 1969.NY.41374 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 299 N.Y.S.2d 537; 59 Misc. 2d 501 April 28, 1969 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF,v.TOM ROWLANDS, DEFENDANT Frank A. Gualtieri, Jr., District Attorney (Jon K. Holcombe of counsel), for plaintiff. James F. Morrissey for defendant. Albert Orenstein, J. Author: Orenstein


Albert Orenstein, J.

Author: Orenstein

 The defendant is charged with criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree, criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the third degree, and criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree, each of the three counts being charged in the indictment. In particular, the first count in the indictment charges that the defendant "knowingly and unlawfully sold a dangerous drug, to wit, lysergic acid diethylamide to Edward J. Uhlig."

The defendant moves under the indictment for an order directing the District Attorney of the County of Onondaga to furnish him a bill of particulars as to a number of matters. The majority of the defendant's requests have been answered by the District Attorney's furnishing him with the necessary particulars. There were, however, on the argument of the motion, five remaining requests which dealt with, as to each count in the indictment, the following matters:

1. Whether an exchange of moneys took place in the sale alleged to have taken place, and if so, by whom and how much.

2. A description of activities taking place at the alleged sale, i.e., private sale, or during course of party.

3. Names of any other parties present on premises at time of alleged sale.

4. Other name, or names, by which one Edward J. Uhlig was known to the party or parties present at the alleged sale.

5. Whether the alleged sale was performed at the request of Edward J. Uhlig or parties other than the defendant.

Section 295-h of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the purpose of a bill of particulars is to set forth "in ordinary language, without stating items of evidence or necessarily setting forth all the elements of the crime," such particulars as may be necessary "to provide the defendant and the court reasonable information as to the nature and character of the crime charged."

The District Attorney has consented to provide the defendant with the particulars demanded, except the afore-mentioned 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

The court is of the opinion that the items numbered 1, 2, 3 and 5 are matters evidentiary in nature and should not, under the permissible scope of the statute, be provided to the defendant.

However, this court is of the opinion that the information sought by item No. 4 should be provided the defendant.

If the buyer of the drugs mentioned in count 1 in the indictment was known to the defendant by name other than his true name (that alleged to be set forth in the indictment) the defendant is entitled to know the name actually used in consummating the purchase.

The first count charges the defendant with criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree, defined in section 220.30 of our Penal Law as follows: "A person is guilty of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.