People v. Martucci
| Citation | 153 A.D.2d 866,545 N.Y.S.2d 385 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Dominick MARTUCCI, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1989 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Demetri M. Jones, of counsel), for appellant.
Arthur Levine, Garden City, for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and EIBER, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
By Indictment No. 155/88, the respondent was indicted by a Suffolk County Grand Jury for rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts) and sexual abuse in the second degree (three counts). The respondent proposed that two witnesses testify before the Grand Jury. The prosecutor interviewed these witnesses at the time the charges were presented to the Grand Jury, concluded that their proposed testimony was irrelevant, and therefore limited the scope of their testimony. The proposed testimony by the respondent's wife which was excluded by the prosecutor concerned the family background of the victim, who was her niece. The other witness, a friend of the victim, had indicated to the prosecutor that she thought that the victim was "fantasizing", but that testimony was also excluded. The County Court, Suffolk County, granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that the testimony of the two defense witnesses concerning their knowledge of the victim's background had a bearing on her credibility and should have been presented to the Grand Jury. We disagree.
It is well settled that, except to the limited extent that CPL 190.50(6) allows a defendant the right to testify or the right to request that certain witnesses be presented to the Grand Jury, a Grand Jury proceeding is not adversarial in nature (see, People v. Brewster, 63 N.Y.2d 419, 422, 482 N.Y.S.2d 724, 472 N.E.2d 686). Rather, the primary purpose of the Grand Jury is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to accuse a person of a crime and to commence criminal proceedings against him (see, People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 394, 426 N.Y.S.2d 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140). Subject to a duty of fair dealing (see, People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 105, 476 N.Y.S.2d 79, 464 N.E.2d 447), the People enjoy wide discretion in presenting their case to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lee
...190.50(5) and (6), for the defendant's right to testify and/or request that body to hear certain witnesses. See, People v. Martucci, 153 A.D.2d 866, 867, 545 N.Y.S.2d 385. [i]n the ordinary case, it is the defendant who, through the exercise of his own right to testify and have others calle......
-
People v. Ramos
...Dept 1994], lv denied84 N.Y.2d 831 [1994];People v. Kaba, 177 A.D.2d 506 [2d Dept 1991], lv denied79 N.Y.2d 859 [1992];People v. Martucci, 153 A.D.2d 866 [2d Dept 1989], lv denied74 N.Y.2d 950 [1989];People v. Monroe, 125 Misc.2d 550 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 1984] ). The court is not persuaded......
-
People v. Thomas
...* * * influence" on the outcome of a Grand Jury proceeding (People v. Perry, 187 A.D.2d 678, 590 N.Y.S.2d 251; People v. Martucci, 153 A.D.2d 866, 867, 545 N.Y.S.2d 385). However, a defendant's testimony at trial is considered "significant material evidence" (People v. Sandoval, supra ), wh......
-
People v. Ramjit
...and, as such, was more appropriately reserved for presentation to the petit jury than to the Grand Jury (see, People v. Martucci, 153 A.D.2d 866, 867, 545 N.Y.S.2d 385; People v. Suarez, 122 A.D.2d 861, 862, 505 N.Y.S.2d 728). Moreover, we note that Carl Ramjit failed to exercise his right ......