People v. Crump
| Decision Date | 07 August 1992 |
| Citation | 597 N.Y.S.2d 1010,157 Misc.2d 566 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Robert CRUMP, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
J. Radley Herold, Scarsdale, for defendant.
Carl A. Vergari, White Plains, Dist. Atty. of Westchester County (Paul D. Stein and Robert K. Sauer, of counsel), for People.
Defendant's instant motions to dismiss the indictment upon review of the grand jury proceedings require analysis of a prosecutor's duty to instruct a grand jury as to an exculpatory defense. In deciding the motion, the court must respectfully disagree with the recent decision in People v. Mosby, N.Y.L.J. (May 15, 1992) at 28 col. 3 (Sup.Ct. Kings Co.) in an area where appellate guidance would seem appropriate.
Defense counsel, in his affirmation, suggests that an alibi instruction was required at the grand jury proceedings because the "defense of alibi ... is an exculpatory, as opposed to mitigating, defense," and that failure to give such an instruction would constitute District Attorney error that so impairs the integrity of the grand jury proceeding as to justify dismissal of the indictment. He cites People v. Valles, 62 N.Y.2d 36, 476 N.Y.S.2d 50, 464 N.E.2d 418 (1984) and Mosby, supra. The People (citing People v. Darby, 75 N.Y.2d 449, 554 N.Y.S.2d 426, 553 N.E.2d 974 (1990)) counter that no such instruction was necessary here--none was in fact given--and that the strict standard for an impaired-integrity dismissal is not met here. The court holds that no alibi instruction was required.
The basic principles are familiar. The District Attorney, in his capacity as legal advisor, must instruct the grand jury on the law with respect to the matters before it, CPL § 190.25(6), although his instructions need not be so precise as a court's instructions to a petit jury must be. People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 394, 426 N.Y.S.2d 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140 (1980). The District Attorney's paramount obligation is to "provide[ ] the Grand Jury with enough information to enable it intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed." Id.
Significantly, the Court of Appeals has described the role of the grand jury as follows: "The primary function of the Grand Jury in our system is to investigate crimes and determine whether sufficient evidence exists to accuse a citizen of a crime and subject him or her to criminal prosecution." Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the "intelligently to decide" standard necessarily encompasses not only the explicitly-stated, but impersonal, question as to "whether a crime has been committed," but also the implicit, more personal, question of whether a particular individual--a target of the grand jury investigation--committed the particular crime or crimes. If the rule were otherwise, there would be no need to analyze the utility of an alibi instruction in this case, since whether a particular suspect was present at the scene of an alleged assault and robbery has no bearing on "whether [assault or robbery] has been committed."
Specifically with respect to defenses, the Court of Appeals has stated broadly that "the question of whether a particular defense need be charged depends upon its potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution." People v. Valles, supra, 62 N.Y.2d at 38, 476 N.Y.S.2d 50, 464 N.E.2d 418. A court reviewing grand jury minutes must ensure that a district attorney instructed the panel as to an appropriate defense that was "complete" and "exculpatory," such that if a grand jury could have found the defense to be applicable, "no indictment would have been returned and an unwarranted prosecution would have been avoided," Id. at 38-39, 476 N.Y.S.2d 50, 464 N.E.2d 418. In contrast, Valles permits but does not require instruction as to "mitigating defenses" that "would not prevent unfounded criminal accusation, but would, at best, merely reduce the degree of the crime charged." Id. at 39, 476 N.Y.S.2d 50, 464 N.E.2d 418. Defendant and his witness gave "complete" and "exculpatory" testimony to the grand jury, but examination of the applicable statutes and case law leads the court to conclude that Valles did not impose upon the presenting A.D.A. in this case a duty to instruct grand jurors specifically as to alibi.
In cases discussing the need to instruct a grand jury as to a defense, the focus has generally been on defenses whose formulation may not be known to a layperson. The reason for this is clear: if a panel's legal advisor does not instruct it as to the elements of such a defense, where those elements have arguably been presented, the members of the panel cannot be said to be capable of "intelligently" deciding whether a particular person should be charged with a particular crime. Hence, in Valles, supra, the presenting A.D.A. had instructed the panel as to the justification defense after a stepfather testified that he had shot a man in an attempt to protect his stepdaughter from attack. Had the defense been made out, there would have been no crime at all; but the grand jurors needed to be instructed as to the particulars of the defense in order to understand this. For similar reasons, courts have noted the value of instructing grand juries as to entrapment, People v. Karassik, 90 Misc.2d 839, 396 N.Y.S.2d 765 (Sup.Ct.Bx.Co.1977) and People v. Lobianco, 126 Misc.2d 519, 483 N.Y.S.2d 145 (Sup.Ct.Bx.Co.1984); as to the agency defense for narcotics-sale crimes, People v. Ali, 137 Misc.2d 812, 523 N.Y.S.2d 334 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.1987); and as to the "claim-of-right" defense to larceny prosecutions, as set forth in P.L. § 155.15 People v. Rosenbaum, 107 Misc.2d 501, 435 N.Y.S.2d 502 (Sup.Ct. Rockland Co. 1981).
In each of these cases, a rule of law existed under which certain apparently-criminal behavior is deemed to be non-criminal. Such is not true where an alibi "defense" is raised. In his well-reasoned dissent in Valles, 62 N.Y.2d at 44, 476 N.Y.S.2d 50, 464 N.E.2d 418, which argued for an expanded obligation to instruct grand juries on defenses, Judge Meyer collected citations to cases in which he said (emphasis added) courts had "held that there is a duty on the prosecutor to instruct the Grand Jury with respect to affirmative defenses." Only two of the cited cases were stated to involve instructions as to exculpatory evidence. In one, People v. Ferrara, 82 Misc.2d 270, 370 N.Y.S.2d 356 (Nassau Co.Ct.1979), the issue was instruction as to the above-mentioned defense of P.L. § 155.15. The other cited case did not involve instructions at all, but the presentation of exculpatory evidence, an issue that need not be adjudicated...
To continue reading
Request your trial