People v. Coppa
Decision Date | 02 May 1977 |
Citation | 394 N.Y.S.2d 219,57 A.D.2d 189 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Frank COPPA, Respondent. |
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Peter A. Norling, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
Paul A. Lemole, Staten Island, for respondent.
Before RABIN, Acting P. J., and SHAPIRO, TITONE and O'CONNOR, JJ.
The People appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 17, 1976, granting the defendant-respondent's motion to dismiss the indictment because of the prosecutor's alleged failure, in his opening statement to the jury, to state a prima facie case. We dismiss the appeal.
The defendant was charged in the indictment with two counts of grand larceny in the second degree. Upon the trial the prosecutor's opening consisted of a reading of the indictment and a short statement of what he intended to prove. When he had concluded his opening, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the opening had not made out a case of grand larceny.
In answer, the court said that it found deficiencies in the opening and indicated that it was inclined to grant the defendant's motion. The prosecutor then moved to be permitted to add to his opening statement. The motion was denied. Thereupon this colloquy ensued between the court and the defendant and his counsel:
The order signed by the Trial Judge reads:
Since the right of the People to appeal is purely statutory (CPL 450.20; People v. Zerillo, 200 N.Y. 443, 93 N.E. 1108), unless we can find statutory authority for this appeal we must dismiss it, regardless of the fact that the result does violence to our concepts of fairness.
In arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, the Assistant District Attorney said:
The Assistant District Attorney was correct on both grounds for (1) the order is not appealable and (2) the question of doubt as to the law should have been resolved in favor of the People (see People v. Reed, 276 N.Y. 5, 11 N.E.2d 330).
The provisions of paragraphs (h) and (i) of subdivision 1 of CPL 210.20, which the court cited in its order as the basis for the dismissal of the indictment, are completely inapplicable to the factual situation with which it was presented.
Paragraph (h) authorizes a dismissal only when "(t)here exists some other jurisdictional or legal impediment to conviction of the defendant for the offense charged" (that is, other than the specific grounds listed in the preceding paragraphs of subdivision 1, none of which are applicable here). That such "jurisdictional or legal impediment" must be substantial is made clear by the fact that, under subdivision 4 of CPL 210.20, a dismissal under that paragraph bars a resubmission of the charge to the Grand Jury. Clearly, the Legislature did not intend to provide such a final and drastic consequence, "the supreme sanction" (People v. Pinion, App.Div., 392 N.Y.S.2d 53 (2d Dept., dec. Feb. 28, 1977)), upon the failure of the prosecutor to make an adequate opening statement to the jury. At most, it was intended that such an omission should be remedied by allowing the prosecutor to correct the omission. In this case, as we have noted, the prosecutor specifically asked that he be permitted to amplify his opening statement. *
Paragraph (i) of subdivision 1 of CPL 210.20, cited by the trial court as an alternative ground for its action, provides for the dismissal of an indictment after arraignment where it "is required in the interest of justice, pursuant to section 210.40." Subdivision 1 of the latter section is a catch-all provision which authorizes the dismissal of an indictment "when, even though there may be no basis for dismissal as a matter of law upon any ground specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of said subdivision one of section 210.20, such dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment * * * would constitute or result in injustice" (emphasis supplied). It is clear that the alleged defect in the prosecutor's opening to the jury fails to meet that test. That section only applies when "there may be no basis for dismissal as a matter of law", i. e., when the defendant, despite his apparent guilt, shows that for some reason of compassion he should not be prosecuted. Conversely the dismissal here was not based upon the exercise of "judicial discretion", but upon the ground that the failure of the People to make an adequate opening warranted the dismissal as a matter of law (cf. People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 342 N.Y.S.2d 106).
It is unfortunate that, by reason of the precipitous action of the trial court, the People will not have an opportunity to have the indictment tried on its merits, since there is no jurisdiction in this court to entertain the appeal and a resubmission of the matter to the Grand Jury is precluded by subdivision 4 of CPL 210.20. The result necessitated here should act as a warning to trial judges in criminal cases that the rule enunciated in People v. Reed, 276 N.Y. 5, 11 N.E.2d 330, supra is still the law and should be followed. In that case the court said (pp. 9-10, 11 N.E.2d pp. 332-333):
The appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction to entertain it.
The instant appeal is reviewable by this court pursuant to subdivision 1 of CPL 450.20, which authorizes appeals from orders of dismissal entered pursuant to CPL 210.20. When Criminal Term dismissed the indictment in question, it acted within the scope of paragraph (h) of subdivision 1 of CPL 210.20. This court is, therefore, empowered to pass upon the merits of Criminal Term's action.
The respondent was indicted for the crime of grand larceny in the second degree (two counts). After the prosecution delivered its opening address, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
De Vito v. Katsch
...to correct any deficiency in the opening (People v. Kurtz, supra, 51 N.Y.2d at 385, 434 N.Y.S.2d 200, 414 N.E.2d 699; People v. Coppa, 57 A.D.2d 189, 394 N.Y.S.2d 219, rev'd on other grounds, 45 N.Y.2d 244, 408 N.Y.S.2d 365, 380 N.E.2d 195), following which, the test for dismissal is whethe......
-
People v. Kurtz
...and then only after the prosecutor has been given an opportunity to correct the deficiency in his opening. (See People v. Coppa, 57 A.D.2d 189, 192, 394 N.Y.S.2d 219, revd. on other grounds 45 N.Y.2d 244, 408 N.Y.S.2d 365, 380 N.E.2d 195; People v. Handford, 40 A.D.2d 529, 333 N.Y.S.2d 950.......
-
People v. Sampson
...certain identification testimony, under these circumstances the People would be deprived of an appellate remedy (see People v. Coppa, 57 A.D.2d 189, 394 N.Y.S.2d 219, rev on other grds 45 N.Y.2d 244, 408 N.Y.S.2d 365, 380 N.E.2d 195, on remand, 65 A.D.2d 581, 409 N.Y.S.2d 157) and double je......
-
People v. Coppa
...an order dismissing an indictment when the order is "entered pursuant to section * * * 210.20". The Appellate Division (57 A.D.2d 189, 192, 394 N.Y.S.2d 219, 221), however, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, after determining that the provisions of CPL 210.20 "which the court ci......