People v. Galuppo
| Citation | 98 Misc.2d 395,413 N.Y.S.2d 880 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. John GALUPPO, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 27 February 1979 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
Leon Polsky, The Legal Aid Society, New York City, for defendant, by Stephen J. Eisenberg, New York City, of counsel.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York County, by James W. Herman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.
The defendant was indicted on October 26, 1978 for the crime of murder in the second degree. He now moves to dismiss on the ground that the evidence before the grand jury was insufficient to support the charge against him and that the grand jury proceeding was defective. The court, having examined the minutes of the grand jury, finds that the evidence was adequate, and dismissal on this basis is clearly unwarranted. However, defendant's challenge to the validity of the grand jury proceeding merits some discussion as it relates principally to the extent of the People's obligation to explore before the grand jury possible defenses which the accused may possess, an issue which has not generally received much attention.
The facts are as follows: Shortly after midnight on October 9, 1978, the police were directed to 524 East 13th Street in connection with a reported stabbing. In a first floor rear apartment, they located the victim, who was later identified as one Marvin Williams. After participating in a search for the perpetrator, one of the officers noticed two young men at the entrance to the building, attempting to gain access. They were admitted by a tenant, whereupon one of the men, the defendant herein, approached the officer and confessed to having stabbed Williams. The defendant and his companion then led the officer to the deceased's apartment. The defendant retrieved a bloodied knife, the weapon which he claimed having used on Williams, as well as a pistol from under the bed. The defendant made a full statement to the authorities, both at the scene and again at the hospital where he was subsequently treated for wounds presumably sustained at the hands of the deceased.
According to the defendant, Williams had, over the course of approximately six years, extorted money and personal property from him, forcing him to steal from his family and friends in order to meet those demands. Williams allegedly effected his purpose by threatening and causing physical injury to the defendant, thereby placing him in such terror that he refrained from contacting the police lest he be subjected to severe retaliation. In fact, the defendant asserts, on two separate occasions he attended school out of the city in order to escape Williams, but upon his return, the deceased found him and resumed the harassment.
On the night of the murder, Williams supposedly induced the reluctant defendant to accompany him to his apartment to help repair a door lock. Immediately upon entering the premises, Williams produced a knife and attempted to compel the defendant to perform a sexual act upon him. When the defendant resisted, he was stabbed, and the resulting injury necessitated an eight-day hospital stay. However, following the attack and not fully aware of the seriousness of his wound, the defendant still continued to hold out against Williams. At this point, the defendant asserts, the deceased pulled a gun and held it to his head, but finally released him when he realized that the defendant was not going to give in and was, moreover, bleeding profusely.
The defendant left the building. On the street, he encountered his friend, Bobby Pages, and informed him of the attack. Pages grabbed a pipe, and the two of them went back to Williams' apartment. After what appears to have been a brief altercation between Williams and Pages, the defendant picked up a kitchen knife and proceeded to stab the deceased. Shortly thereafter, they departed, and Pages telephoned 911 from the defendant's home.
Based on this version of the facts, as related by the defendant to the police, the district attorney and the grand jury, defense counsel sent a letter to the foreman of the grand jury in which he wrote that:
The district attorney, however, advised the members of the grand jury that the lack of responsibility, or insanity, defense is not available before the grand jury. They could, if they so desired, he told them, hear defendant's other proposed witnesses that is, except for the psychiatrist on the issue of justification and also for the purpose of demonstrating extreme emotional disturbance so as to determine whether manslaughter in the first degree, rather than murder in the second degree, would be the appropriate charge. The grand jury then voted against calling the additional witnesses requested by defendant.
Defendant's contention that the grand jury proceeding was defective is predicated on a number of grounds. It is his position that the instructions provided to the grand jury were inadequate and improper in that the prosecutor wrongfully stated that the psychiatric testimony offered by the defendant was not material, that he failed to charge them as to the circumstantial evidence rule relating to intent, and that he generally did not give the necessary legal instructions applicable to the case. He also argues that the grand jury was made to become biased, hostile and unresponsive due to the People's policy of having it hear exclusively homicide cases. Finally, the defendant asserts that the district attorney unfairly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lancaster
...determinations of guilt (People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 396, 426 N.Y.S.2d 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140, supra; see, People v. Galuppo, 98 Misc.2d 395, 400, 413 N.Y.S.2d 880). We hold, therefore, that consideration of a potential defense of mental disease or defect should rest exclusively wi......
-
People v. Valles
...evidence supporting such defenses is clear and pervasive. (Cf. People v. Rosenbaum, 107 Misc.2d 501, 435 N.Y.S.2d 502; People v. Galuppo, 98 Misc.2d 395, 413 N.Y.S.2d 880; People v. Karassik, 90 Misc.2d 839, 396 N.Y.S.2d 765.) Such an obligation is particularly necessary in light of the tri......
-
People v. Lancaster
...The nature of the defense of mental disease or defect precludes its being the subject of Grand Jury consideration (People v. Galuppo, 98 Misc.2d 395, 400, 413 N.Y.S.2d 880; cf. People v. Valles, supra, 62 N.Y.2d p. 40, 476 N.Y.S.2d 50, 464 N.E.2d 418 [Kaye, J., concurring opin,] ). A determ......
-
People v. Hill
...cases involving claims of entrapment (People v. Karassik, 90 Misc.2d 839, 396 N.Y.S.2d 765) and mental disease (People v. Galuppo, 98 Misc.2d 395, 413 N.Y.S.2d 880) do not require presentation of such evidence to grand juries. Evidence related to witness bias, prejudice or ulterior motivati......