People v. Isla

• Decision Date: 11 August 1983
• Citation: 466 N.Y.S.2d 16,96 A.D.2d 789
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raul ISLA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 16

466 N.Y.S.2d 16

96 A.D.2d 789

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raul ISLA, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Aug. 11, 1983.

J.P. Adolfsen, New York City, for respondent.

P.A. Furst, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSS, CARRO, ASCH and FEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment rendered September 7, 1982 in Supreme Court, New York County, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, unanimously affirmed.

At the time of the arrest defendant made a statement to the police to the effect that he had just shot the victim but that it had been done in self-defense because the man had chased him with a metal bar. Because defendant had a full opportunity to present--and in fact, did so present--this defense at trial, we find no due process or other basis to conclude that he was denied a fair trial. However, we must admonish the district attorney for not reporting to the Grand Jury any more than the first half of defendant's statement. The Grand Jury is "part of the investigatory process and not the prosecution." People v. Waters, 27 N.Y.2d 553, 556, 313 N.Y.S.2d 124, 261 N.E.2d 265. While the prosecutor usually has wide discretion in these matters and is not strictly required to present exculpatory evidence in seeking the Grand Jury's indictment, see People v. Elmhurst Milk, 116 Misc.2d 140, 455 N.Y.S.2d 473, and People v. Perez, 105 Misc.2d 845, 433 N.Y.S.2d 541, it seems more than just a little unfair for the People's attorney, in this case, not to have disclosed the whole of defendant's confession. Merely having the officer testify that the defendant "said that he had shot a man the manager during an argument" is not enough. He should have quoted the rest of the sentence, i.e., that defendant had shot "in self-defense". The Grand Jury was entitled to the full story so that it could make an independent decision that probable cause existed to support an indictment. People v. Filis, 87 Misc.2d 1067, 1069, 386 N.Y.S.2d 988, Compare United States v. Kennedy, 564 F.2d 1329 (9 Cir.1977). However, we are persuaded that in this case the failure to do so was not such as to require a reversal since defendant was able to present his defense of self-defense and justification at trial.