People v. Bedjanzaden

CourtNew York County Court
Writing for the CourtHUGH R. ELWYN
Citation61 Misc.2d 766,306 N.Y.S.2d 498
Decision Date18 December 1969
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Rustam BEDJANZADEN, William Jevins and Gregory Zuboff, Defendants.

Page 498

306 N.Y.S.2d 498
61 Misc.2d 766
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Rustam BEDJANZADEN, William Jevins and Gregory Zuboff, Defendants.
Sullivan County Court.
Dec. 18, 1969.

Page 499

Louis B. Scheinman, Dist. Atty. of Sullivan County, for the people.

Gross & Gross, Liberty, for defendant, Gregory Zuboff.

Louis Tieger, Monticello, for defendant, William Jevins.

HUGH R. ELWYN, Judge.

During the course of a trial of the defendants Jevins and Zuboff in February 1969 upon an indictment charging burglary in the third degree, counsel for the defendants moved for an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and for a dismissal of the indictment upon the grounds that there was insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury to support an indictment for a crime.

It appears from the transcript of the trial that the Grand Jury minnutes were not available to the District Attorney at the commencement of the trial and that because the indictment was returned by the Grand Jury prior to his taking office he had no personal knowledge of the evidence upon which the indictment had been obtained. It was only after the trial had commenced that he was able to secure the Grand Jury minutes.

However, after reading the minutes and analyzing them and before the Court ruled on the defendants' motion for a dismissal [61 Misc.2d 767] of the indictment, on which it had reserved decision, the District Attorney, with admirable candor, stated to the Court, 'I find that I must state in candor to this Court I must concede, I believe it's my duty to concede, that the testimony before the Grand Jury was altogether inadequate to sustain an indictment.' After some further colloquy between the Court and the District Attorney, the transcript of the proceedings shows that he agreed with the Court's statement that if the indictment is not valid because of insufficient evidence, then the trial would be a nullity. Thereupon, the Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the indictment for insufficiency.

The defendants were thereafter again indicted by the April 1969 Grand Jury of Sullivan County for the crimes of Burglary in the Third Degree and Petit Larceny arising out of the same facts and circumstances as the original indictment of November 8th, 1968. The defendants have each pleaded 'Not Guilty' to the new indictment and have raised the issue of double jeopardy, contending that to compel them to stand trial under the new indictment would place them in

Page 500

double jeopardy in contravention of their constitutional rights under both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York (U.S.Const. Fifth Amend.; N.Y.Cons. Article 1, Sect. 6).

The defendants assert that they were placed in jeopardy at their trial when the Jury was examined and sworn, witnesses were sworn and evidence given (People ex rel. Meyer v. Warden, 269 N.Y. 426, 199 N.E. 647; Matter of Bland v. Supreme Ct., 20 N.Y.2d 552, 285 N.Y.S.2d 597, 232 N.E.2d 633). Also, they rightly point out that the guarantee contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applicable to the states and 'that the ruling on double...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • People v. Key
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 22 Marzo 1976
    ...defendant tried upon an insufficient accusatory instrument does not subject the defendant to double jeopardy (see People v. Bedjanzaden, 61 Misc.2d 766, 306 N.Y.S.2d 498). However, under our present law the failure to raise an objection to the accusatory instrument prior to trial may result......
1 cases
  • People v. Key
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 22 Marzo 1976
    ...defendant tried upon an insufficient accusatory instrument does not subject the defendant to double jeopardy (see People v. Bedjanzaden, 61 Misc.2d 766, 306 N.Y.S.2d 498). However, under our present law the failure to raise an objection to the accusatory instrument prior to trial may result......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT