People v. Castaldo

• Decision Date: 11 January 2017
• Citation: 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00179,46 N.Y.S.3d 115,146 A.D.3d 797
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., appellant, v. Patrick CASTALDO, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

146 A.D.3d 797
46 N.Y.S.3d 115
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00179

The PEOPLE, etc., appellant,
v.
Patrick CASTALDO, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Jan. 11, 2017.

46 N.Y.S.3d 117

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Andrew Kass of counsel), for appellant.

The Quinn Law Firm, PLLC, White Plains, NY (Andrew C. Quinn of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

146 A.D.3d 797

Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Neary, J.), dated August 3, 2015, as granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was pursuant to CPL 210.20 to dismiss the indictment, and dismissed the indictment.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

146 A.D.3d 798

The defendant was a Senior Investigator at the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. He and his partner, Chief Criminal Investigator Gerald Schramek, were involved in an incident on July 3, 2014, when a prisoner, whom they were escorting from arraignment, reached for Chief Schramek's gun. The prisoner was subdued and, thereafter, the defendant proceeded to kick, punch, and use other force upon the prisoner, including holding the prisoner from behind around the neck, which police witnesses described as an unauthorized choke hold. The defendant was indicted on charges of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, related to his written report on the incident omitting his use of a choke hold, official misconduct, related to his failure to file any paperwork on his use of force or conduct until July 8, 2014, and attempted assault in the third degree.

In an omnibus motion, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 210.20 to dismiss the indictment. The Supreme Court granted that branch of his motion on the grounds that the grand jury was not properly instructed on the standards of proof required to vote an indictment and the evidence was legally insufficient to support the charges of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and official misconduct. The People appeal.

"[A] Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law" (People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 394, 426 N.Y.S.2d 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140 ; see People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 115, 506 N.Y.S.2d 18, 497 N.E.2d 41 ; People v. Burch, 108 A.D.3d 679, 680, 968 N.Y.S.2d 592 ). However, "[w]hen the District Attorney's instructions

46 N.Y.S.3d 118

to the Grand Jury are so incomplete or misleading as to substantially undermine [its] essential function, it may fairly be said that the integrity of that body has been impaired" such that dismissal of the indictment is proper (People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d at 396, 426 N.Y.S.2d 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140 ; see CPL 210.20 [1][c], 210.35[5] ; People v. Caracciola, 78 N.Y.2d 1021, 576 N.Y.S.2d 74, 581 N.E.2d 1329 ). Here, the Supreme Court determined that the grand jury was not properly instructed on the standards of proof because it was not instructed on the definitions of "legally sufficient evidence" and "reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense" as set forth in CPL 70.10. However, those standards were defined for the grand jurors during their impanelment. Although the minutes of the grand jury impanelment apparently were not available for review during the Supreme Court's inspection of the grand jury minutes, those minutes are a part of the record of the proceedings (see CPL 190.25[6] ), and may be considered by this Court on appeal (see

146 A.D.3d 799

Williams v. Naylor, 64 A.D.3d 588, 589, 886 N.Y.S.2d 30 ; People v. Davis, 161 A.D.2d 787, 788, 556 N.Y.S.2d 664 ; Deal v. Meenan Oil Co., 153 A.D.2d 665, 665–666, 544 N.Y.S.2d 672 ; Matter of Cohen v. Seletsky, 142 A.D.2d 111, 117, 534 N.Y.S.2d 688 ). Accordingly, the grand jury was properly instructed on the standards of proof, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the indictment on the basis of improper instructions must be reversed.

"Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate ‘whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence—would warrant conviction’ " (People v. Mills, 1 N.Y.3d 269, 274–275, 772 N.Y.S.2d 228, 804 N.E.2d 392, quoting People v. Carroll, 93 N.Y.2d 564, 568, 693 N.Y.S.2d 498, 715 N.E.2d 500 ; see People v. Jensen, 86 N.Y.2d 248, 251, 630 N.Y.S.2d 989, 654 N.E.2d 1237 ; People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 114, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079 ; People v. Wisey, 133 A.D.3d 799, 799–800, 21 N.Y.S.3d 111 ). Legally sufficient evidence is "competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" (CPL 70.10[1] ; see People v. Wisey,...