People v. Powell
| Decision Date | 07 December 1990 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Michael A. POWELL, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Howard R. Relin, Monroe County Dist. Atty. (Marjorie Byrnes, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), for the People.
Edward J. Nowak, Monroe County Public Defender (Richard A. Marchese, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel), for defendant.
A hearing has been conducted, pursuant to Section 710.60(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law, following a motion to suppress the use of statements, as permitted under Section 710.20(3). However, before a determination can be made thereon, it becomes necessary to address the issue of whether or not the Court continues to exercise jurisdiction over this case.
The original indictment against the defendant consisted of two counts, and charged him with Burglary in the Second Degree and Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree. The Court thereafter granted a motion for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes, pursuant to Section 210.30(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law. On October 1, 1990, for reasons set forth in a Decision and Order of the same date, a motion to dismiss the charge of Burglary in the Second Degree, upon grounds of insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury, was denied, but the Court did direct that the count of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree be reduced to a charge of Petit Larceny, pursuant to relatively recent amendments to Section 210.20. More specifically, new subdivisions 1-a and 6 were added to that section, and permits a court, upon motion on behalf of a defendant, to reduce a count of an indictment to a lesser included offense upon grounds that the Grand Jury evidence was legally insufficient to support an indictment or counts thereof, but legally sufficient to establish commission of a lesser included offense. Furthermore, the effectiveness of an order reducing a count of an indictment is stayed for a period of 30 days, during which time the People must either accept the Court's order by filing a reduced indictment, or where appropriate, a prosecutor's information, resubmit the count to a different Grand Jury, or appeal the order. Criminal Procedure Law, Section 210.20(6)(a), (b), and (c).
The suppression hearing, in the pending case, was held on November 9, 1990, more than 30 days from the Court's order directing a reduction of the larceny count of the indictment. However, as of that time, the People had not exercised any of the three options, as aforementioned. Nevertheless, a reduced indictment was subsequently filed, and the defendant arraigned thereon on November 27, 1990, at which time the People again announced readiness for trial.
This Court has concluded that it does continue to have jurisdiction over the case, but not necessarily for the reasons advanced by the People. In essence, the District Attorney contends that an order reducing an indictment, pursuant to Section 210.20(1-a) of the Criminal Procedure Law, serves, by operation of law, to amend the indictment to conform with such an order in the event that the People do not exercise any one of the three options, or waive the stay of the effectiveness of such an order. The People acknowledge that, unless the case is resubmitted to another Grand Jury or an appeal taken with the 30-day period, Section 210.20(6)(a) requires the filing of a reduced indictment, but contend that this is a "superfluous" requirement if the People wish to accept the Court's order without taking any further action. As correctly noted by counsel for the defendant, in regard to matters of statutory construction, courts generally presume that every legislative provision has some useful purpose. See Matter of Albano v. Kirby, 36 N.Y.2d 526, 369 N.Y.S.2d 655, 330 N.E.2d 615 (1975); Delaware County Electric Co-op. v. Power Authority, 96 A.D.2d 154, 468 N.Y.S.2d 233 (4th Dept.1983). Further, as stated in McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York, Book 1, Statutes, Section 231:
"In construing a statute, no part thereof is to be considered meaningless unless that conclusion is inevitable, and words in statutes are not to be rejected as superfluous when it is practicable to give each a distinct and separate meaning."
Therefore, this Court declines to rule that the filing of a reduced indictment constitutes a "superfluous" requirement.
Prior to the amendments to Section 210.20, courts did not possess the authority to reduce a count of an indictment in a case where the evidence before the Grand Jury may have been legally insufficient to support a count of an indictment, but sufficient to sustain a lesser included criminal charge. See, e.g., People v. Cruz, 84 A.D.2d 962, 446 N.Y.S.2d 721 (4th Dept.1981); People v. Maier, 72 A.D.2d 754, 421 N.Y.S.2d 272 (2nd Dept.1979). Thus, a motion to dismiss an indictment, or any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nunez
...does not establish an enforceable time limitation has been made before with some success. In People v. Powell, 148 Misc.2d 966, 564 N.Y.S.2d 663 [Sup.Ct., Monroe Co.; Cornelius, J.], for example, the belated filing of a reduced indictment was held to result in no more serious consequence th......
-
People v. Jackson
...surprisingly, variations on both these questions have divided the trial courts (compare, People v. Jackson, supra; and People v. Powell, 148 Misc.2d 966, 564 N.Y.S.2d 663, with People v. Ferguson, 159 Misc.2d 51, 602 N.Y.S.2d 785; People v. Nunez, 157 Misc.2d 793, 598 N.Y.S.2d 917; and Peop......
-
People v. Green
...resume ticking once that motion had been determined merely because they were contemplating their next move. [C.f., People v. Powell, 148 Misc.2d 966, 969, 564 N.Y.S.2d 663 (S.Ct., Monroe Co., 1990) (period from expiration of stay to filing of reduced indictment as directed in reduction orde......
-
People v. Gega
...encouraging settlement of controversies. Saratoga Gas & Elec. Light Co. v. Town, 67 Hun. 645, 22 N.Y.S. 342.4 In People v. Powell, 148 Misc.2d 966, 564 N.Y.S.2d 663, my esteemed colleague Justice Raymond Cornelius grappled with a prosecutor who made no selection from the options set forth i......