The chairman of a local political party was charged with grand larceny for having taken and appropriated monies from the funds of the local political party in all the nine years that he was chairman from the years 1968 until 1977.
A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the accused chairman seeks the dismissal of the indictment for grand larceny against him on the ground that the charge was jurisdictionally defective: the facts on which the charge was based were all conclusions of fact and do not apprise the accused of the crime for which he is being charged. He also claims that the monies he allegedly took from the funds of the political party were taken in a span of nine years. The accused chairman claims that there is a statute of limitations that limits prosecutions for grand larceny to those committed within five years from the time of the indictment. Since the charges were for the taking and misappropriating of funds and property committed for nine years, the charge contains facts which are already barred by statute while there are still some facts which are not yet barred by statute. This makes the indictment void according to the chairman.
The public prosecutor opposed the motion to dismiss. The prosecutor asserts that a charge in an indictment is sufficient when it contains facts that clearly allege each element so that the accused can understand what he is being charged with and so that he can defend himself.
A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he has been charged with grand larceny for taking for his own benefit money and property which were entrusted to him as chairman of the political party who alone has the power and authorize disbursements and flow of cash. The amount stolen or taken from the political property amounted to $245, 284.91.
The Court found that the charge in the indictment was accompanied by a plain statement of facts which allege the elements of the crime of grand larceny. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said any person who reads the indictment will know that the chairman was being accused of grand larceny and no other crime. Thus, the indictment is sufficient in form and in substance to pass scrutiny.
As to the assertion of the chairman that the indictment is defective because he is charged with engaging in criminal conduct which was committed more than five years before the indictment and conduct which occurred less than five years before the indictment; the public prosecutor claims that the grand larceny committed by the chairman was a continuing offense. As a continuing offense, there is one criminal design and the specific acts of taking money were all united under one criminal design. According to the prosecutor, it does not matter if some of the acts of larceny were committed more than five years or less than five years from the indictment, what matters is that the criminal intent and the criminal design continued for the nine years that he was chairman. Thus, the indictment was timely.
The Court found that the chairman’s motion to dismiss the indictment was not accompanied by a specific statement of which facts were time-barred and which were not. For this reason, the Court directed the trial court to proceed to trial to determine which parts of the indictment are barred by the statute of limitations and which are not. The Court directed the accused chairman to object to the introduction of each fact which he deems to be time-barred. Holding a pre-trial hearing to determine the sufficiency of the charge would be the same as conducting two trials, one before the judge and one before the jury. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the solution would be for the defendant to raise the defense of statute of limitations to each count as it is being proved by the prosecution.
Are you facing a charge of several counts of grand larceny? Are you thinking of filing a motion to dismiss the indictment for being time-barred? Ask the advice of a New York City Grand Larceny attorney. The New York Grand Larceny lawyer can give you insight as to strategy in having the indictment dismissed through a motion or, continuing with the trial and raising the grounds of objection each time the prosecution tries to present evidence of larceny committed beyond the statute of limitations. Come and consult with the NYC Grand Larceny attorneys from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. The NY Grand Larceny attorneys from Stephen Bilkis are willing to represent you.