People v. Dumas
506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 68 N.Y.2d 729, 497 N.E.2d 686 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A misdemeanor complaint alleging the sale of a controlled substance is facially insufficient if it contains only a conclusory statement that the substance was illicit, without alleging any evidentiary facts that would form the basis for such a conclusion.
Facts:
- In the Dumas case, an undercover police officer informed a deponent that Dumas knowingly sold two clear plastic bags of a substance identified as marijuana.
- The alleged sale was for an unspecified sum of United States currency.
- A similar complaint, containing analogous allegations, was filed against Fausto in a separate case.
- Neither complaint alleged that the undercover police officer possessed expertise or training in identifying marijuana.
- Neither complaint alleged that the defendant had represented the substance being sold as marijuana.
- The undercover officer in each case submitted a supporting deposition that merely adopted the statements in the complaint without providing additional facts.
Procedural Posture:
- The People filed misdemeanor complaints against defendants Dumas and Fausto in the Criminal Court of the City of New York.
- The Criminal Court, acting as the trial court, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints as facially insufficient.
- The People, as appellant, appealed the dismissals to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court.
- The Appellate Term, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the orders of the Criminal Court, thereby reinstating the complaints.
- The defendants, now appellants, were granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a misdemeanor complaint that conclusorily states a defendant sold marijuana, without any supporting evidentiary facts showing the basis for identifying the substance as marijuana, facially sufficient to establish reasonable cause under New York's Criminal Procedure Law?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum
No. A misdemeanor complaint is facially insufficient if it contains only a conclusory statement about the identity of a substance without providing supporting evidentiary facts. The New York Criminal Procedure Law requires that a complaint allege 'facts of an evidentiary character' that demonstrate 'reasonable cause' to believe the defendant committed the crime. The complaints against Dumas and Fausto merely contained the conclusory statement that the substance sold was marijuana. They failed to provide any basis for this conclusion, such as an allegation that the officer was an expert in identifying marijuana or that the defendant represented the substance as such. Because a misdemeanor complaint can serve as the sole basis for an arrest warrant, it must provide the court with sufficient facts to independently determine whether the defendant should be held for further action.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the pleading standard for misdemeanor drug complaints in New York, establishing that a police officer's mere conclusion is insufficient to establish reasonable cause. It compels the prosecution to include a factual predicate in the charging instrument that supports an officer's belief that a substance is a narcotic. This holding reinforces the judicial gatekeeping function, ensuring that an arrest warrant is based on objective facts rather than unsupported assertions. The case sets a precedent for how initial charging documents must be drafted, requiring more specificity to protect individuals from arrests based on conclusory allegations.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Dumas