Limits reversals for failure of prompt prosecution where there is no violation of periods of limitations, speedy trial time periods, and no showing of material prejudice resulting from unreasonable delay.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A7022
SPONSOR: Paulin TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to limiting
reversals for failure of prompt prosecution under certain circumstances
PURPOSE OR.GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
This bill is intended to clarify and amend current law regarding the
prompt prosecution of criminal cases, and to prevent unwarranted
reversals of convictions.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one of the bill amends the criminal procedure law to add a new
Subdivision to clarify that a conviction shall not be reversed for fail-
ure of prompt prosecution where there is no violation of sections 30.10
and 30.30 of the CPL, and now showing of materials prejudice to the
defendant resulting from unreasonable delay.
Section two provides the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
Current case law on the doctrine of prompt prosecution leaves signif-
icant confusion and lack of clarity as to the circumstances under which
a conviction will be reversed. Existing law fails to set forth predict-
able standards for prosecutors as to how long a delay is too long; what
rationale for a delay is an acceptable one; and how much weight should
be given to the seriousness of a crime before reversing a conviction.
Prosecutors need consistent and predictable standards to inform their
charging decisions.Moreover, crime victims who are weighing a life-
altering decision on whether to report a violent crime and testify about
it in court deserve to have confidence that a resultant conviction will
not be overturned absent truly compelling reasons.
The prompt prosecution doctrine"has been developed through judicial
decisions and is intended to protect a defendant's right to due
process.This bill accords full weight to a defendant's due process
rights, while also giving weight to the public's right to safety, and a
crime victim's right to justice and accountability. Moreover, all
parties to the justice system are served by clarity and predictability
in the law.
Prosecutions can be delayed for many reasons.Sometimes delays occur when
conscientious prosecutors confront challenges that are inherent to a
given prosecution.In other cases, a delay may, be caused by law enforce-
ment bias towards a victim, such as gender bias, racial bias, or rape
myths, that may initially prevent a sexual assault victim from being
taken seriously at the outset of a case. Recognition of this problem was
one of the factors prompting the legislature to remove the statute of
limitations for first degree rape and to lengthen the statutes of limi-
tations for second- and third-degree rape. Many victims must fight an
uphill battle before their cases move forward, and it is the view of the
legislature that, in such cases, victims should not be penalized for
having to advocate doggedly for themselves before charges are filed. At
the very least, such circumstances should not lead to reversal of a
conviction where the resultant delay violated no statute and occasioned
no prejudice to the defendant.
That the doctrine of prompt prosecution is grounded in constitutional
due process does not preclude the legislature from setting forth clari-
fying standards, for several reasons. First, where case law has created
a landscape of uncertainty and unpredictability, it is appropriate for
the legislature to act in order to contribute clarity. Second, the
legislature has a role and a responsibility to contribute to constitu-
tional interpretation, and legislative actions can serve as persuasive
authority for courts. Third, prompt prosecution case law relies not only
on the New York State Constitution but on statutes such as C.P.L. §
30.10 and § 30.30; to the extent that statutes undergird a legal
doctrine it is squarely within the legislature's prerogative to amend
those statutes. Finally, the legislature has taken pains to confine
this bill only to those cases in which the timing of a prosecution has
not caused any material harm or prejudice to a defendant, as those are
the cases in which constitutional due process concerns are at a minimum.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
None.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have
become a law.
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
7022
2023-2024 Regular Sessions
IN ASSEMBLY
May 10, 2023
___________
Introduced by M. of A. PAULIN -- read once and referred to the Committee
on Codes
AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to limiting
reversals for failure of prompt prosecution under certain circum-
stances
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-bly, do enact as follows:
1 Section 1. Section 30.20 of the criminal procedure law is amended by
2 adding a new subdivision 3 to read as follows:
3 3. A conviction shall not be reversed for failure of prompt prose-
4 cution where there is no violation of sections 30.10 and 30.30 of this
5 article, and no showing of material prejudice to the defendant resulting
6 from unreasonable delay.
7 § 2. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall
8 have become a law.
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[] is old law to be omitted.
LBD11006-01-3
