People v. Cole
| Decision Date | 17 November 1983 |
| Citation | 470 N.Y.S.2d 705,97 A.D.2d 886 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Luann COLE, Respondent. |
Noel Tepper, Poughkeepsie, for respondent.
Charles E. Inman, Dist. Atty., Hudson (John J. Crimmins, III, Kinderhook, of counsel), for appellant.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and SWEENEY, KANE, MIKOLL and WEISS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Columbia County, entered December 15, 1982, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to suppress and granted defendant's motion to dismiss Count No. 2 of the indictment.
Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with (1) criminally negligent homicide; (2) and (3) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, respectively; and (4) failure to keep to the right, following her involvement in a two-car accident at Germantown, Columbia County, on February 28, 1982.
Upon motion by defendant, and after an in camera inspection of the minutes of the Grand Jury, the court dismissed the second count of the indictment, determining that defendant was incapable of giving an informed consent at the time of request for a blood sample, and suppressed the use of the result of the test by the People. Pursuant to CPL 450.20, the People appeal, certifying that the remaining proof would be insufficient to obtain a conviction (CPL 450.50).
The order of suppression was improperly issued. Where, as here, defendant's allegations are controverted, there must be a hearing held before any evidence can be suppressed. The provisions of the statute requiring such a hearing are mandatory (CPL 710.60, subd. 4; People v. Weaver, 49 N.Y.2d 1012, 429 N.Y.S.2d 399, 406 N.E.2d 1335).
We would also note that County Court apparently weighed the conflicting evidence before the Grand Jury. This was improper. It is not the function of the court to weigh the evidence presented to the Grand Jury, for it is the Grand Jury that is the arbiter of the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence (People v. Eckert, 2 N.Y.2d 126, 129, 157 N.Y.S.2d 551, 138 N.Y.S.2d 794; People v. Warner-Lambert Co., 69 A.D.2d 265, 417 N.Y.S.2d 997, revd on other grounds 51 N.Y.2d 295, 434 N.Y.S.2d 159, 414 N.E.2d 660, cert. den. 450 U.S. 1031, 101 S.Ct. 1742, 68 L.Ed.2d 227). All that is required is that the People present a prima facie case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Snowden, 156S–2014.
...how dubious it may be. See People v. Deegan, 69 N.Y.2d 979 (1978) ; People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 115 (1987) ; People v. Cole, 97 A.D.2d 886 (1983). The sole function of the trial court at this pre-trial stage is merely to determine that there is "competent evidence, which, if accepted......
-
People v. Jones
...Id. (citing People v. Sabella , 35 N.Y.2d 158, 167, 359 N.Y.S.2d 100, 316 N.E.2d 569 (1974) ). See also People v. Cole , 97 A.D.2d 886, 470 N.Y.S.2d 705 (3d Dept. 1983). The Second Department in O'Connor , supra , implicitly did exactly the same thing. The lesson to be drawn from these case......
-
People v. Naoki Yaguchi
...rests solely with the grand jury. See People v. Deegan , 69 N.Y.2d 976, 516 N.Y.S.2d 651, 509 N.E.2d 345 (1987) ; People v. Cole , 97 A.D.2d 886, 470 N.Y.S.2d 705 (1983) ; People v. Piening , 99 A.D.2d 583, 471 N.Y.S.2d 692 (1984). Applying these principles of law, the indictment in this ca......
-
People v. Sutton
...448, 301 N.E.2d 432 (1973); People v. Haney, 30 N.Y.2d 328, 336 n. 10, 333 N.Y.S.2d 403, 284 N.E.2d 564 (1972); People v. Cole, 97 A.D.2d 886, 470 N.Y.S.2d 705 (3d Dept.1983); People v. Alaxanian, 89 A.D.2d 700, 453 N.Y.S.2d 873 (3d Dept.1982). To assure that judicial examination of suffici......