TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Hancock

The People of the State of New York v. Emanuel Hancock

People v. Hancock, 173 A.D.2d 377 (1991)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 28, 1991
Citations
173 A.D.2d 377570 N.Y.S.2d 101991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7587

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leon Becker, J., at jury trial and sentence; Herbert Altman, J., on speedy trial motion), rendered February 11, 1986, convicting defendant of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

This case was held in abeyance pending determination of defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. (People v Hancock, 161 AD2d 108 .) The motion was denied upon the finding that, at most, 130 days of delay were chargeable to the People. We now affirm. Although an additional period of 22 days, between indictment and arraignment, is chargeable to the People as conceded (People v Correa, 77 NY2d 930 ), the People nevertheless were well within their statutory time frame. The District Attorney was under no obligation to produce the Grand Jury minutes until ordered to do so, and he was entitled to a reasonable time to get them once the court directed their production. (People v Wallace, 100 AD2d 634 , appeal dismissed 63 NY2d 1035 , rearg denied 65 NY2d 638 .) The contested periods of time due to the complainant’s unavailability were properly excluded, as her extended pregnancy was a special circumstance. (CPL 30.30 [4] [g].) Defendant consented to or waived objection to the remaining periods of delay that he contests on appeal. (CPL 30.30 [4] [b]; People v Lawrence, 64 NY2d 200, 205 .)

*378 We find no merit in defendant’s claim that his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1996: 119962026peak 1996 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Womack229 A.D.2d 304 (1996)

Most recent

  1. People v. Womack229 A.D.2d 304 (1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Lawrence, 474 N.E.2d 593 (N.Y. 1984) 159
People v. Correa, 572 N.E.2d 42 (N.Y. 1991) 82
People v. Wallace, 100 A.D.2d 634 (1984) 4
People v. Wallace, 473 N.E.2d 1189 (N.Y. 1984) 3
People v. Hancock, 161 A.D.2d 108 (1990) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list