Once a court renders its verdict in a non-jury criminal trial, that's it. It cannot go back and change its mind. That's what the Second Department held on May 1st in Matter of Phillips v Weiboldt, 2007 NY Slip Op 03931. A Justice of a Town Court had found a defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3). A few minutes later, during colloquy prior to sentencing, the Justice indicated that he reweighed the factual evidence and found that the defendant was not guilty of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3), but guilty of the lesser-included offense of driving while ability impaired under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(1). The local District Attorney thus commenced an article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the Justice from enforcing a judgment, and mandamus to compel the Justice to enter a judgment convicting the defendant of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3]). The Second Department found that the Justice did not have the inherent power nor the statutory authority to reconsider his factual determination. Thus, the District Attorney's petition should have been granted. The Court noted that although a justice may correct clerical or ministerial errors, he is without authority to reassess the facts and change a guilty verdict to not guilty. It noted that "verdict" is defined by CPL 1.20(12) as "the announcement . . . by the court in the case of a non-jury trial, of its decision upon the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charges . . . considered by it." Thus, the Justice's reconsideration of his verdict constituted a factual determination that came too late and exceeded the scope of his authority.
What would be considered a clerical or ministerial error? If a Justice claimed that he had misspoken, would that suffice? Probably. The case makes clear that if there is if there is reconsideration of the evidence a justice may not change its verdict. An interesting little case about the authority of a court.
Comments