People v. McIntosh

• Decision Date: 01 July 1992
• Citation: 600 N.E.2d 199,587 N.Y.S.2d 568,80 N.Y.2d 87
• Parties: , 600 N.E.2d 199 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hughval Anthony McINTOSH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 568

587 N.Y.S.2d 568

80 N.Y.2d 87, 600 N.E.2d 199

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hughval Anthony McINTOSH, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 1, 1992.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty. (John F. McGlynn and Peter A. Weinstein, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

TITONE, Judge.

This appeal concerns the ongoing effect, if any, that a CPL 450.50(1) statement has after an appeal taken by the People pursuant to CPL 450.20(8) has been withdrawn with the permission of the appellate court.

Following the trial court's decision to suppress certain evidence that the People had intended to introduce at defendant's trial, the People filed a notice of appeal along with the required CPL 450.50(1) statement, which asserted that the suppression order "rendered the sum of proof available to the People * * * either legally insufficient or so weak in its entirety that any reasonable probability of obtaining a conviction * * * has been effectively destroyed" (see, CPL 450.20[8]. Approximately six weeks later, however, the People moved for leave to withdraw their appeal, asserting in an affidavit that "the matter has been further reviewed and it has been determined that although the People's case has been considerably weakened by the suppression order, a trial of defendant is the most appropriate procedural avenue." The People's motion for leave to withdraw the appeal was granted by order of the Appellate Division dated October 16 1989, and the appeal was, in fact, withdrawn.

After the appeal's withdrawal, defendant moved in the trial court for dismissal of the indictment. Relying on CPL 450.50(2) and this Court's decision in Matter of Forte v. Supreme Ct., 48 N.Y.2d 179, 422 N.Y.S.2d 26, 397 N.E.2d 717, defendant argued that the People's CPL 450.50(1) statement was binding on them and that further prosecution of the indictment was now foreclosed. The trial court adopted defendant's argument and dismissed the indictment. The Appellate Division, however, reversed and reinstated the indictment. 173 A.D.2d 490, 570 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1991). Citing some of the language used in Matter of Forte v. Supreme Ct., supra, 48 N.Y.2d at 188, 422 N.Y.S.2d 26, 397 N.E.2d 717 and People v. Kates, 53 N.Y.2d 591, 596-597, 444 N.Y.S.2d 446, 428 N.E.2d 852, the Court concluded that CPL 450.50(2) does not operate to bar further prosecution of an indictment unless and until the underlying People's appeal actually culminates in an affirmance. We agree with the Appellate Division's conclusion, but inasmuch as neither Forte nor Kates resolves the issue presented here, we reach that conclusion by a somewhat different route.

CPL 450.20(8) authorizes the People to take an appeal from a trial court order suppressing evidence, provided that they file a CPL 450.50(1) statement to the effect that the order to be appealed has rendered their case either "insufficient as a matter of law" or "so weak in its entirety that any reasonable possibility of prosecuting * * * has been effectively destroyed." The purpose of these interlocking provisions is to limit appeals by the People from suppression orders to cases in which the order is so devastating to the People's case that, as a practical matter, it ends the prosecution (see, Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL 450.50, at 568-569). Under CPL 450.50(2), "[t]he taking of an appeal * * * pursuant to [CPL 450.20(8) ] * * * constitutes a bar to the prosecution of the accusatory instrument * * * unless and until [the] suppression order is reversed upon appeal and vacated."

Relying on the underscored language, defendant argues that it is the act of "taking" the appeal that operates as a bar to further prosecution and that, accordingly, the Appellate Division was in error when it held that the statutory bar is inoperative unless and until the suppression order is upheld on appeal. This argument has much merit in the abstract, but it does not advance defe...