People v. Gray
| Decision Date | 14 June 2001 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>ROSCHEEM GRAY and DUANE K. DIXON, Respondents. |
Shortly before 4:00 A.M. on October 17, 1999, Tommas Lifgren left a bar in the Town of Catskill, Greene County, with defendants and traveled to the Town of Greenport, Columbia County, purportedly to complete a narcotics transaction. Defendant Duane K. Dixon operated the vehicle in which Lifgren was a passenger and defendant Roscheem Gray was seated behind him. After crossing the Rip Van Winkle Bridge, the vehicle came to a stop in front of a house. Lifgren suffered a blow to the back of his head, stumbled out of the vehicle and saw Gray trying to strike him with a gun. He ran towards the back of the house and suffered two gunshot wounds. Defendants pursued him, continued the assault and thereafter left by car.
Lifgren, well acquainted with defendants, described the events to the police and both were thereafter indicted for assault in the second degree. Pretrial motions, including motions to dismiss the indictment based upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence, were denied by County Court. Their counsel sought to renew the motions, additionally asserting a Brady violation based upon the People's failure to timely provide them with the statements and notes obtained by police authorities from Serena Phillips and Charnita Carlisle, individuals subsequently identified by Dixon as his alibi witnesses.
After reviewing these materials, County Court concluded that they were exculpatory and directed that they be provided; it rejected the People's assertion that because both witnesses had been named by Dixon, disclosure was not required since both defendants had access to this information. In a subsequent decision, County Court dismissed the indictments, concluding that since the witnesses' statements were exculpatory, the prosecution was obligated to present evidence of them to the Grand Jury or at least apprize it of their existence. Notably, while these statements concerned only the activities of Dixon, the court concluded that the presentation of the case against Gray was so intertwined with that of Dixon that the impact of the exculpatory evidence required dismissal of both. The People appeal.
The primary function of the Grand Jury is to investigate and determine whether sufficient evidence exists to accuse an individual of a crime and subject that individual to criminal prosecution (see, People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394). Exculpatory and mitigating defenses are treated differently since a determination as to whether a particular defense should be charged depends upon its potential for eliminating an unfounded or needless prosecution (see, People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38).
As noted by the Court of Appeals in People v Lancaster (69 NY2d 20, cert denied 480 US 922): "The People generally enjoy wide discretion in presenting their case to the Grand Jury * * * and are not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in their possession that is favorable to the accused * * * even though such information undeniably would allow the Grand Jury to make a more informed determination" (id., at 25-26 [...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creighton v. City of N.Y.
...all of their evidence tending to exculpate the accused." People v. Mitchell, 82 N.Y.2d 509, 515 (1993): see also People v. Gray, 284 A.D.2d 664, 665 (3d Dep't 2001) (finding no defect in grand jury proceedings where exculpatory statements of alibi witnesses were not presented to the grand j......
-
People v. Lemma
...N.E.2d 113 [1999];see also People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88, 109–110, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 [2004];People v. Gray, 284 A.D.2d 664, 665, 728 N.Y.S.2d 513 [3d Dept.2001];People v. Quinones, 228 A.D.2d 796, 798, 644 N.Y.S.2d 365 [3d Dept.1996] ).” People v. McKenna, 24 Misc.3d 1, 882 ......
- People v. Rychel
-
Whitehead v. District Atty. Columbia County, 3
...of De Bellis v Property Clerk of City of N.Y., 79 N.Y.2d 49, 56). Indeed, this Court reinstated the indictment on appeal (see, People v Gray, 284 A.D.2d 664). Since that criminal proceeding is extant and petitioner's automobile is potential evidence in the trial of that matter, Supreme Cour......