People v. Smith

Decision Date24 March 2005
Citation828 N.E.2d 958,796 N.Y.S.2d 1,4 N.Y.3d 806
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENNETH SMITH, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender, Rochester (Timothy P. Donaher of counsel), for appellant.

Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Michael J. Nolan of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Following indictment, defendant moved under CPL 210.30 (1) to inspect the grand jury minutes and dismiss the indictment on the ground that "[t]he evidence before the grand jury was not legally sufficient to establish the offense[s] charged" (CPL 210.20 [1] [b]). After reviewing the transcript of the grand jury proceeding, Supreme Court found that the evidence presented to the grand jury was, in fact, sufficient. In a decision and order to this effect, Supreme Court also pointed out that the indictment stated that the charged crimes occurred on a date other than the date appearing in the minutes, and invited the People to make an application to modify the indictment accordingly. Defendant renewed his motion to dismiss the indictment for legal insufficiency. Supreme Court held a hearing to inquire into the discrepancy between the dates, ultimately concluding that the minutes contained a simple typographical error. A jury subsequently convicted defendant of several of the crimes charged.

Defendant insists that Supreme Court was required to dismiss the indictment under these circumstances. Because Supreme Court conducted the hearing in the context of defendant's CPL 210.30 motion to inspect and dismiss, defendant has not presented us with a reviewable issue. Specifically, CPL 210.30 (6) provides that "[t]he validity of an order denying any motion made pursuant to this section is not reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence." Defendant does not challenge the legal sufficiency of the trial evidence.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Thomas v. N. Country Family Health Ctr., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 4, 2022
  • People v. Weaver
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 20, 2018
    ... ... Secor, 162 A.D.3d 1411, 1413, 80 N.Y.S.3d 511 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 941, 84 N.Y.S.3d 868, 109 N.E.3d 1168 [2018] ; see People v. Smith, 4 N.Y.3d 806, 808, 796 N.Y.S.2d 1, 828 N.E.2d 958 [2005] ; People v. Roulhac, 166 A.D.3d 1066, 86 N.Y.S.3d 336, 338 [2018] ; People v. Robinson, 156 A.D.3d 1123, 1128 n. 8, 67 N.Y.S.3d 709 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1119, 77 N.Y.S.3d 344, 101 N.E.3d 985 [2018] ). Our review of the grand jury ... ...
  • People v. Sorrell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 3, 2013
    ... ... Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury is precluded given that the judgment of conviction is based upon legally sufficient trial evidence ( seeCPL 210.30[6]; People v. Smith, 4 N.Y.3d 806, 808, 796 N.Y.S.2d 1, 828 N.E.2d 958 [2005] ).3. According to the testimony, defendant attempted, in the same interview, to inconsistently minimize or deny his sexual conduct and its frequency, to retract his admissions, to explain away the child's knowledge of sexual acts and ... ...
  • People v. Garcia
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 24, 2017
    ... ... " Having failed to challenge the [legal] sufficiency of the trial evidence, defendant may not now challenge the [legal] sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury " (People v. McCoy, 100 A.D.3d 1422, 1423, 953 N.Y.S.2d 788 ; see People v. Smith, 4 N.Y.3d 806, 807808, 796 N.Y.S.2d 1, 828 N.E.2d 958 ; People v. Lane, 106 A.D.3d 1478, 14811482, 966 N.Y.S.2d 307, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1043, 972 N.Y.S.2d 540, 995 N.E.2d 856 ). We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant raised in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • 7.15 - 3. Insufficient Grand Jury Evidence; “Motion To Inspect”
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association NY Criminal Practice Chapter 7 Motion Practice
    • Invalid date
    ...court to review the minutes and decide the motion notwithstanding the absence of such allegations.--------Notes:[1263] . People v. Smith, 4 N.Y.3d 806, 796 N.Y.S.2d 1...

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