People v. McIntosh

Decision Date13 November 1990
Citation167 A.D.2d 429,561 N.Y.S.2d 790
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Cynthia McINTOSH, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

William V. Grady, Dist. Atty., Poughkeepsie (Bridget Rahilly Steller, of counsel), for appellant.

John B. Garrity, Jr., Poughkeepsie (Terry D. Horner, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, MILLER and RITTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered July 12, 1988, as, upon granting that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to preclude the People from offering into evidence an inculpatory statement made by her on the ground of the People's failure to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30, sua sponte dismissed Dutchess County Indictment No. 23/88, charging her with grand larceny in the second degree, misuse of food stamps, and deliberate concealment of a material fact to obtain public assistance, on the ground of insufficient evidence.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings.

The record reveals that, after the County Court reviewed the Grand Jury minutes and found the indictment to be based on legally sufficient evidence, it granted the defendant's motion to preclude the use of her inculpatory statement at trial due to the prosecution's failure to provide timely notice under CPL 710.30 of its intent to offer the statement into evidence at the trial. The court then, sua sponte, reassessed the evidence before the Grand Jury without considering the excluded statement and, finding the evidence to be legally insufficient, dismissed the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20(1)(b). This was error. The defendant's statement was prima facie competent and the indictment was supported by legally sufficient evidence presented to the Grand Jury. The court's subsequent exclusion of the statement for purposes of the trial does not render that evidence insufficient or otherwise invalidate the indictment (see, People v. Oakley, 28 N.Y.2d 309, 321 N.Y.S.2d 596, 270 N.E.2d 318; People v. Kersch, 135 A.D.2d 570, 521 N.Y.S.2d 788; People v. Blase, 112 A.D.2d 943, 492 N.Y.S.2d 464; People v. Vega, 80 A.D.2d 867, 436 N.Y.S.2d 748; People v. Mauceri, 74 A.D.2d 833, 425 N.Y.S.2d 346). Moreov...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Bauza
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 11 Abril 2023
    ...rule where, as here, the evidence suppressed was a confession." People v Mauceri, 74 A.D.2d 833 (2d Dept, 1980). See People v McIntosh, 167 A.D.2d 429 (1st Dept, 1990) ("The court's subsequent exclusion of the statement for purposes of trial does not render that evidence insufficient or oth......
  • People v. Smedman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 8 Junio 1992
    ......         We note that the County Court was without authority to [184 A.D.2d 604] sua sponte dismiss the indictment during the course of preliminary proceedings on the ground that the trial evidence would be insufficient (see, People v. McIntosh, 167 A.D.2d 429, 561 N.Y.S.2d 790; see also, People v. Sullivan, 142 A.D.2d 695, 531 N.Y.S.2d 295). CPL article 210 governing pretrial proceedings sets forth the permissible bases for a dismissal on motion before trial, and the insufficiency of the trial evidence is not among them (see, CPL ......
  • People v. Sian
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 13 Noviembre 1990
    ......Blase, 112 A.D.2d 943, 492 N.Y.S.2d 464; People v. Vega, 80 A.D.2d 867, 436 N.Y.S.2d 748; People v. Mauceri, 74 A.D.2d 833, 425 N.Y.S.2d 346). Accordingly, the indictment is reinstated and the matter is . Page 793. remitted to the County Court for further proceedings (see, People v. McIntosh, 167 A.D.2d 429, 561 N.Y.S.2d 790 [decided herewith], including ......
  • People v. Martin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 13 Noviembre 1990

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT