People v. Farley

• Decision Date: 27 June 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04844,107 A.D.3d 1295,968 N.Y.S.2d 209
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Joshua I. FARLEY, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

107 A.D.3d 1295
968 N.Y.S.2d 209
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04844

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Joshua I. FARLEY, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 27, 2013.

Kristy L. Sprague, District Attorney, Elizabethtown (Michael P. Langey of counsel), for appellant.

Brian P. Barrett, Lake Placid, for respondent.

[968 N.Y.S.2d 210]

Before: PETERS, P.J., ROSE, STEIN and GARRY, JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

[107 A.D.3d 1295]Appeal from an order of the County Court of Essex County (Meyer, J.), entered June 2, 2009, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictments.

A grand jury returned three indictments charging defendant with various drug-related crimes stemming from three alleged sales of cocaine to a confidential informant. County Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictments, finding that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings had been impaired ( seeCPL 210.35[5] ) due to the People's failure to adequately inquire into instances of potential grand juror bias and because the grand jury heard allegedly prejudicial evidence. The People appeal, and we reverse.

A grand jury proceeding that yields an indictment is defective when it “fails to conform to the requirements of [CPL article 190] to such degree that the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result” (CPL 210.35[5] ). “Dismissal of an indictment pursuant to CPL 210.35(5) is a drastic, exceptional remedy and should thus be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the [g]rand [j]ury” ( People v. Sutherland, 104 A.D.3d 1064, 1066, 962 N.Y.S.2d 463 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. Tatro, 53 A.D.3d 781, 783, 862 N.Y.S.2d 154 [2008],lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 835, 868 N.Y.S.2d 610, 897 N.E.2d 1094 [2008];People v. Mujahid, 45 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 846 N.Y.S.2d 708 [2007],lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 814, 857 N.Y.S.2d 47, 886 N.E.2d 812 [2008] ). “The likelihood of prejudice turns on the particular facts of each case, including the weight and nature of the admissible proof adduced to support the indictment and the degree of inappropriate prosecutorial influence or bias” ( People v. Huston, 88 N.Y.2d 400, 409, 646 N.Y.S.2d 69, 668 N.E.2d 1362 [1996];accord People v. Moffitt, 20 A.D.3d 687, 688, 798 N.Y.S.2d 556 [2005],lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 854, 806 N.Y.S.2d 174, 840 N.E.2d 143 [2005];see People v. Revette, 48 A.D.3d 886, 887, 851 N.Y.S.2d 299 [2008] ).

Here, when the prosecutor inquired as to whether any of the grand jurors knew defendant, one of the jurors stated that she [107 A.D.3d 1296]knew defendant and his mother from growing up in the area where defendant...