People v. Miranda
| Decision Date | 23 December 1968 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Michael MIRANDA, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Thomas J. Mackell, Dist. Atty., Queens County, Kew Gardens, for appellant; Sidney Baumgarten, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel.
Abraham H. Brodsky, New York City, for respondent.
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, RABIN and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 15, 1967, which granted defendant's motion insofar as it was to dismiss the indictment.
Order reversed, on the law, and motion denied insofar as it is to dismiss the indictment and granted insofar as it is for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes. No questions of fact were considered.
An indictment under subdivision 6 of section 600 of the former Penal Law may not be dismissed on the ground that defendant, who had been granted immunity pursuant to section 2447 of the former Penal Law, had not been directed by a court to answer questions before a grand jury (People v. Riela, 7 N.Y.2d 571, 200 N.Y.S.2d 43, 166 N.E.2d 840).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Didio
...precedent or statutory mandate establishing such warning as a condition precedent to the indictment returned here. In People v. Miranda, 31 A.D.2d 657, 296 N.Y.S.2d 804, the Second Department, relying upon People v. Riela, 7 N.Y.2d 571, 200 N.Y.S.2d 43, 166 N.E.2d 840, held that a criminal ......
-
Capio v. Justices of Supreme Court, Kings County
...Breslin, 306 N.Y. 294, 118 N.E.2d 108), without the necessity of a direction by the court that he answer the questions (People v. Miranda, 31 A.D.2d 657, 296 N.Y.S.2d 804). But the court in holding the petitioner in contempt did so not alone on the basis of his refusal to obey the order to ......