People v. Colombo
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | The Supreme Court, Kings County, Vincent D. Damiani |
| Citation | 306 N.Y.S.2d 258,25 N.Y.2d 641,254 N.E.2d 340 |
| Parties | , 254 N.E.2d 340 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Joseph COLOMBO, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert GALLO, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1969 |
Page 258
v.
Joseph COLOMBO, Appellant.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Albert GALLO, Appellant.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 32 A.D.2d 812, 302 N.Y.S.2d 488.
Page 259
[25 N.Y.2d 643] Barry Ivan Slotnick, New York City (Jacob Kossman, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellants.
Eugene Gold, Brooklyn (Irving P. Seidman, Jay Gregory Horlick, Brooklyn, of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.
Page 258
Each [25 N.Y.2d 642] defendant was subpoenaed to testify before Grand Jury on October 14, 1965. Each defendant, after being duly sworn, refused to answer any of the questions propounded to him on ground of self-incrimination and belief that Grand Jury inquiry was irrelevant, improper, and immaterial. The District Attorney agreed to grant each defendant full and complete immunity pursuant to former Penal Law, Section 2447, but each defendant persisted in asserting his privilege not to testify. On December 7, 1965 each defendant was adjudged to be in criminal contempt of court pursuant to Section 750, subd. 3, of the Judiciary Law, and was sentenced to term of 30 days in civil prison and a fine of $250 was levied. The defendants offered on May 9, 1965 to appear before the Grand Jury and testify, but they were denied permission by the District Attorney. Thereafter on October 10, 1966 the Kings County Grand Jury returned indictments against the defendants charging them with a violation of Section 600, subd. 6, of the former Penal Law.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, Vincent D. Damiani, J., rendered orders dismissing the indictments.
The Appellate Division entered an order June 16, 1969 which reversed on the law and the facts the orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County and denied the motions. The Appellate Division held that refusal of defendants to testify before Grand Jury warranted conviction for criminal contempt.
The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. One of the defendants contended in the Court of Appeals that failure of District Attorney to inform Grand Jury that had subpoenaed that defendant to testify, that he was willing to appear before the Grand Jury and testify was sufficient reason for dismissal of the indictment, and that successive prosecutions of a same defendant arising out of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dercole
...to a charge of criminal contempt nor is it relevant on the issue of intent (People v. Colombo, 32 A.D.2d 812, 302 N.Y.S.2d 488, affd. 25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 N.Y.S.2d 258, 254 N.E.2d 340, vac. on other grounds 400 U.S. 16, 91 S.Ct. 99, 27 L.Ed.2d 16; People v. Einhorn, supra ). Nevertheless, the......
-
Maples v. State
...Court reversed the trial judge's determination that double jeopardy precluded the prosecution under the indictment. People v. Colombo, 25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 N.Y.S.2d 258, 254 N.E.2d 340 (1969). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration. C......
-
State v. Sammons, Nos. 761 and 772
...held in contempt for the same contumacious conduct. Loy v. Loy, 32 Tenn.App. 470, 222 S.W.2d 873, 878 (1949). Accord People v. Columbo, 25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 N.Y.S.2d 258, 254 N.E.2d 340 (1969), vacated and remanded, Colombo v. New York, 405 U.S. 9, 92 S.Ct. 756, 30 L.Ed.2d 762 (1972), on rema......
-
People v. Failla
...Mr. Justice Damiani which had dismissed the indictment against Colombo. Thereafter, the Court Page 507 of Appeals in People v. Colombo, 25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 N.Y.S.2d 258, 254 N.E.2d 340, in affirming the decision of the Appellate Division, appeared to adopt the separate purpose doctrine origi......
-
People v. Dercole
...to a charge of criminal contempt nor is it relevant on the issue of intent (People v. Colombo, 32 A.D.2d 812, 302 N.Y.S.2d 488, affd. 25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 N.Y.S.2d 258, 254 N.E.2d 340, vac. on other grounds 400 U.S. 16, 91 S.Ct. 99, 27 L.Ed.2d 16; People v. Einhorn, supra ). Nevertheless, the......
-
Maples v. State
...Court reversed the trial judge's determination that double jeopardy precluded the prosecution under the indictment. People v. Colombo, 25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 N.Y.S.2d 258, 254 N.E.2d 340 (1969). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration. C......
-
State v. Sammons, Nos. 761 and 772
...held in contempt for the same contumacious conduct. Loy v. Loy, 32 Tenn.App. 470, 222 S.W.2d 873, 878 (1949). Accord People v. Columbo, 25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 N.Y.S.2d 258, 254 N.E.2d 340 (1969), vacated and remanded, Colombo v. New York, 405 U.S. 9, 92 S.Ct. 756, 30 L.Ed.2d 762 (1972), on rema......
-
People v. Failla
...Mr. Justice Damiani which had dismissed the indictment against Colombo. Thereafter, the Court Page 507 of Appeals in People v. Colombo, 25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 N.Y.S.2d 258, 254 N.E.2d 340, in affirming the decision of the Appellate Division, appeared to adopt the separate purpose doctrine origi......