People v. Mauceri

• Decision Date: 25 January 1979
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Joseph MAUCERI, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 90

413 N.Y.S.2d 90

97 Misc.2d 989

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Joseph MAUCERI, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Criminal Term, Queens County, Part 22.

Jan. 25, 1979.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Queens County, for People of New York by Eileen M. Sullivan, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens.

Brett & Finkin, Forest Hills, for defendant by Thomas E. Brett, Forest Hills.

MEMORANDUM

ANTHONY P. SAVARESE, Acting Justice.

The defendant is charged with Burglary in the Second Degree and Arson in the Second Degree. He made a motion pretrial requesting, among other things, inspection of the Grand Jury minutes, dismissal of the indictment and suppression of statements allegedly made by him.

The motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and to dismiss the indictment was granted to the extent that the court reviewed the minutes and found sufficient legal evidence to have been adduced to sustain the indictment. The motion to suppress the statements was granted to the extent of granting a hearing on that issue. A Huntley hearing was held before the Honorable Martin Rodell who thereafter granted the motion to suppress the statements.

The defendant now moves this court to reinspect the Grand Jury minutes to ascertain whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the indictment absent the suppressed admissions and, if not sufficient, to dismiss the indictment.

Although not expressly stated, the motion is brought under subdivision 1(b) of section 210.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law upon the ground therein provided that the evidence before the Grand Jury was not legally sufficient to establish the offense charged or any lesser offense. Authority for the motion is found in section 255.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

A closely related issue was considered and resolved by the Court of Appeals in People v. Oakley, 28 N.Y.2d 309, 321 N.Y.S.2d 596, 597, 270 N.E.2d 318, 319 (1971). There the court held that an identification improperly procured, and therefore suppressed, was nevertheless sufficient to support a Grand Jury indictment. Mr. Justice Breitel, speaking for the court, said: "Because the evidence of identification was competent Prima facie, but was held to be suggestive only upon a subsequent pretrial hearing, there was no insufficiency of evidence before the Grand Jury upon which the indictment was founded."

The Oakley decision would be dispositive of the case at bar were it not for the following dictum which appeared at or near the conclusion of the opinion:

"The situation with respect to confessions used in obtaining an indictment and subsequently suppressed may or may not present a different issue (see People v. Colletti, 42 Misc.2d 158, 247 N.Y.S.2d 704). That issue it is not now necessary or appropriate to reach."

The instant case, since it involves admissions, would appear thereby to have been excluded from the holding in Oakley.

The Colletti case was decided by Justice J. Irwin Shapiro, then sitting in trial part. He dismissed an indictment, reasoning that after the confession was suppressed, "(t)his Court is now charged with judicial knowledge and notice of the fact that (the defendant's) written confession was not 'legal evidence'. It may therefore not evade its duty to protect (the defendant's) statutory and constitutional rights * * *."

The Court of Appeals stopped short of overruling Colletti but gave no hint of its views on the applicability of the Oakley doctrine to Colletti situations. ¹ The defendant's admissions of guilt in the present case place the issue squarely before this court.

Initially it should be noted that in both the Oakley and Colletti cases the courts had before them the trial record.

In Oakley, where the record disclosed that " * * * from the total circumstances the identification by the witness was reliable and had an untainted source independent of the suggestive exhibition or 'show-up' * * * " (People v. Oakley, supra, p. 312, 321 N.Y.S.2d p. 598, 270 N.E.2d p. 320) and that there was "remarkably strong proof that the complainant had an unusually dramatic opportunity to observe, note, and recall the culprit's appearance", the court concluded therefore that "the undoing of the indictment would only result in the resubmission to the Grand Jury with the purpose of obtaining another indictment * * *. This would be a sterile repetition" (People v. Oakley, supra, p. 313, 321 N.Y.S.2d p. 599, 270 N.E.2d p. 320).

In Colletti the court was unmoved by the quantum of proof at trial, observing that "(t)he fact that sufficient...