People v. Cannon

• Decision Date: 22 December 1994
• Citation: 620 N.Y.S.2d 539,210 A.D.2d 764
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Edward CANNON, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 539

620 N.Y.S.2d 539

210 A.D.2d 764

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Edward CANNON, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Dec. 22, 1994.

George M. Dentes, Dist. Atty., Ithaca, for appellant.

Frank Smithson, Ithaca, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, WHITE and YESAWICH, JJ.

MIKOLL, Justice Presiding.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Tompkins County (Barrett, J.), entered November 21, 1993, which partially granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.

The issue before us is whether County Court properly dismissed counts of the indictment charging defendant with resisting arrest and criminal mischief based on inadequate proof before the Grand Jury and insufficient instructions. Defendant was placed under arrest on May 4, 1993 for disorderly conduct and was later indicted for the crimes of assault in the second degree, resisting arrest, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

Review of the Grand Jury minutes revealed that shortly after 9:00 P.M. on May 4, 1993, the City of Ithaca Police Department received a complaint of a fight in progress at Landmark Square Apartments. Police Officers Michael Koval and Philip Newby separately responded to the complaint. Koval arrived first and observed defendant and another individual, later identified as Jacob Beanford, in an apparent verbal dispute. Koval testified that defendant moved toward Beanford with clenched fists and attempted to strike him. Defendant also taunted Beanford and shouted obscenities at him. Koval separated the disputants, advised Beanford that he was under arrest, handcuffed him and escorted him to the patrol car where he was turned over to another officer who had arrived. Koval returned to the scene and told defendant he was under arrest for disorderly conduct.

Defendant fled on foot as Newby arrived. Defendant ran to apartment number 17 where Koval and Newby observed him punch and break a window in the screen door to the apartment. The two officers pursued defendant into a second floor bedroom of the apartment and Koval again informed defendant that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct. Defendant was handcuffed and led out of the apartment. As defendant and Newby descended the stairs, defendant began to struggle and jerked away from Newby, causing both defendant and Newby to fall down the stairs. Newby injured his leg in the fall. Defendant was taken to the police station and continued to physically struggle and curse; he was ultimately placed under protective restraints.

The People and defendant stipulated to the submission of the Grand Jury minutes to County Court to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charges and whether the instructions to the Grand Jury were adequate. County Court reviewed the Grand Jury minutes and dismissed the resisting arrest count for inadequate instructions and dismissed the count charging criminal mischief in the fourth degree based on legally insufficient evidence. This appeal by the People followed. A subsequent motion by the People for leave to resubmit the charges to the Grand Jury was denied by County Court. No appeal was taken from the latter order.

County Court dismissed the third count of the indictment charging criminal mischief in the fourth degree for insufficient evidence of proof of ownership of the damaged door. The court determined that there was inadequate proof showing that someone other than defendant had a proprietary interest in the damaged door. The People's contention that this constituted error is persuasive. The interpretation of the evidence before the Grand Jury by County Court was unduly narrow. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury, the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 114, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079; People v. Garbarino, 152 A.D.2d 254, 256, 549 N.Y.S.2d 527, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 919, 555 N.Y.S.2d 37, 554 N.E.2d 74). Defendant...