|
|
|
| Charging Documents |
|
The primary authority from the Supreme Court establishing constitutional notice requirements in charging documents in criminal cases is Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962). There is one federal district court opinion out of the Northern District of Ohio that applied Russell to a 40-count rape case and found that the Due Process rights of the accused had been violated. See Valentine v. Huffman, 285 F.Supp.2d 1011 (N.D. Ohio 2003), affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by, Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005).
|
|
|
People v. Sedlock,
No. 77 (N.Y.Ct.App., June 5, 2007): Charging Documents: Sedlock was a funeral director and a scoutmaster for a Boy Scout troop. One of the members of his troop accused him of Forcible Touching which is a misdemeanor under New York law. The accuser was 18-years-old when he made the allegation to the police, telling them that he had been touched inappropriately over the years. The charging document accused Sedlock of committing the crime "from December 2002 through June 2003" which is a period of seven months. Sedlock moved to dismiss on the basis that the time frame was so expansive that he could not prepare his defense. HELD: REVERSED with instructions to dismiss on the basis that the charging document failed to give proper notice sufficient to allow Sedlock to prepare his defense. NOTE: There appears to be very good case authority from the New York Court of Appeals on this issue.
|
|
|
|
