People v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 30 June 1959
• Citation: 189 N.Y.S.2d 39,19 Misc.2d 412
• Parties: The PEOPLE of The State of New York v. Clarence EDWARDS, Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of General Sessions

Page 39

189 N.Y.S.2d 39

19 Misc.2d 412

The PEOPLE of The State of New York v. Clarence EDWARDS, Defendant.

Court of General Sessions, New York County.

June 30, 1959.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York City (by Peter J. O'Connor, New York City, of counsel), for the People.

Robert R. Kaufman, New York City, for defendant.

THOMAS DICKENS, Judge.

In these moving papers, defendant contends that the judgment of conviction entered upon his plea of guilty to the charge of robbery in the third degree, is invalid as being, in effect, violative of his constitutional right to due process, and for this reason should be vacated.

He rests this contention of unconstitutionality upon the theory that when the district attorney presented the case against him to the grand jury in the first instance, instead of having him arraigned before a magistrate for a preliminary hearing in compliance with section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his fundamental right to a fair trial was violated. Not only that, but by proceeding in this fashion, the district attorney and the police department, he further contends, perpetrated thereby an act of fraud upon the court. Because he attacks the validity of the judgment for a constitutional reason, defendant maintains that this motion, sounded in coram nobis, is the proper remedy for the relief he seeks.

Inasmuch as defendant's attorney sets forth the issue in the form of a constitutional question for determination, I shall give the merits of the application consideration in extenso, despite the fact that principles of hornbook law, which manifestly apply here, make the solution of this odd issue a simple one.

Under sections 207 and 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the function of a magistrate is not to resolve the guilt or the innocence of an accused charged with the commission of a crime, but solely to determine by means of a preliminary examination whether a crime had been committed and whether the accused had been connected with it. Armstrong v. Mishkin, 286 App.Div. 864, 141 N.Y.S.2d 884; People v. Harris, 132 Misc. 391, 229 N.Y.S. 569; People v. Steiger, 154 Misc. 538, 277 N.Y.S. 602; People v. Albero, 119 Misc. 339, 196 N.Y.S. 484; Cohen v. Bruere, 96 Misc. 609, 162 N.Y.S. 75, affirmed 179 App.Div. 884, 165 N.Y.S. 1080; In the Matter of Capshaw, 258 App.Div. 470, 17 N.Y.S.2d 172, appeal denied 258 App.Div. 1053, 18 N.Y.S.2d 741. At the conclusion of the examination, he has the power to hold a defendant to answer for the action of the grand jury when he finds the evidence to be sufficient, prima facie, to cause him to believe that such defendant should be held for commitment. People ex rel. Willett v. Quinn, 150 App.Div. 813, 135 N.Y.S. 477; People ex rel. Renkas v. Pearsall, Co.Ct., 59 N.Y.S.2d 616.

A magistrate's proceeding, however, is distinct from a grand jury's inquiry. People ex rel. Hirschberg v. Close, 1 N.Y.2d 258, 260 (bottom), 152 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2 (bottom). A preliminary examination before a magistrate is not necessary in order to indict, for accusations of crime may, in the first instance, be presented to a grand jury for deliberation. People ex rel. Kawiecki v. Carhart, 170 Misc. 894, 13 N.Y.S.2d 293; People v. Joslin, 129 Misc. 790, 223 N.Y.S. 59. A grand jury is at no time devested of its statutory prerogative to investigate, even on its own initiative, all offences, whether they be felonies or misdemeanors, and whether a preliminary hearing had been held before a magistrate. People ex rel. Reis v. Warden of Bronx County Jail of City of N. Y., 150 Misc. 801, 269 N.Y.S. 433, affirmed 239 App.Div. 891, 264 N.Y.S. 948, appeal denied 240 App.Div. 761, 265 N.Y.S. 956; Manning v. Valente, 272 App.Div. 358, 363 (middle), 72 N.Y.S.2d 88, 93 (bottom), affirming 297 N.Y. 681, 77 N.E.2d 3; People v. Diamond, 72 App.Div. 281, 76 N.Y.S. 57, affirmed 175 N.Y. 517, 67 N.E. 1087. If definite action be taken by indictment, every inferior tribunal is immediately ousted of jurisdiction, and it makes no difference whether the inferior tribunal had acquired jurisdiction of the case. People v. Molineux, 26 Misc. 589, 590 (middle), 57 N.Y.S. 643, 644 (bottom); People v. Steiger, supra; People v. Molineux, 14 N.Y.Cr.R. 136. To summarize: '* * * the Grand Jury had power to investigate and indict regardless of what had occurred before the magistrate and regardless of whether the magistrate had held or discharged the prisoner or still had the matter pending, or of whether there had ever been such a preliminary hearing.' People ex rel....