People v. Mc Nab
| Decision Date | 16 November 1990 |
| Citation | 167 A.D.2d 858,562 N.Y.S.2d 590 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel Mc NAB, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Howard Broder, Rochester, for appellant.
Howard R. Relin by Robert Mastrocola, Rochester, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, GREEN, PINE and BALIO, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of one count each of rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree; he was acquitted of six counts of rape in the first degree and two counts of sodomy. Defendant's rape conviction must be reversed. Defendant was indicted on seven identical counts of rape by forcible compulsion, the complainant testified at trial that nine acts of rape occurred, and the jury convicted him of only the seventh count of rape. It is impossible to ascertain what alleged act of rape was found by the jury to have occurred, whether it was one of the seven for which he was indicted, or indeed whether different jurors convicted defendant based on different acts. Reversal is required because the jury may have convicted defendant of an unindicted rape, resulting in the usurpation by the prosecutor of the exclusive power of the Grand Jury to determine the charges (see, People v. Grega, 72 N.Y.2d 489, 495-496, 534 N.Y.S.2d 647, 531 N.E.2d 279). Because defendant's right to be tried and convicted of only those crimes charged in the indictment is fundamental and nonwaivable, we reach this issue despite the fact that it is unpreserved (see, People v. Rubin, 101 A.D.2d 71, 77, 474 N.Y.S.2d 348). Furthermore, appellate review is impossible without implicating the prohibition against double jeopardy (see, People v. Knight, 161 A.D.2d 668, 555 N.Y.S.2d 816; People v. Caliendo, 158 A.D.2d 531, 551 N.Y.S.2d 297). The same reasoning applies to the assault conviction, because the complainant testified to more than one act of assault, but defendant was indicted on only one count.
We have examined defendant's remaining arguments on appeal and find that none requires reversal.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and indictment dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swail v. Hunt
...in usurpation by the prosecutor of the exclusive power of the [g]rand [j]ury to determine the charges” ( People v. Mc Nab, 167 A.D.2d 858, 858, 562 N.Y.S.2d 590 (4th Dept.1990)). This claim pertains to the criminal contempt offense charged in the third count of the indictment, which alleged......
-
People v. Box
...358, 547 N.Y.S.2d 620, 546 N.E.2d 913 and may have resulted in a lack of unanimity in the verdict in violation of People v. McNab , 167 A.D.2d 858, 562 N.Y.S.2d 590. Because defendant failed to object to the charge as given, we conclude that those contentions are not preserved for our revie......
-
Caballero v. Conway
...first two occasions or acts as they allegedly occurred in chronological order. TT.716. Trial counsel objected that this did not solve the "McNab issue"2, arguing that there was still a possibility that the jury would convicted Caballero of unindicted instances of sodomy and sexual abuse. In......
-
People v. Williams
...degree must be reversed because she may have been convicted of an act for which she was not indicted ( see generally People v. McNab, 167 A.D.2d 858, 858, 562 N.Y.S.2d 590). Specifically, defendant contends that the grand jury may have indicted her based on her conduct toward one of the pro......