People v. Townsend
| Decision Date | 17 February 1987 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Frank TOWNSEND, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M.A. Schwartz, A.B. Rudman, A. Rettew, New York City, for appellant.
W.I. Aronwald, White Plains, for defendant-respondent.
Before SANDLER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, CARRO, ROSENBERGER and WALLACH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), entered April 22, 1985, which dismissed the second count of the indictment charging bribery in the first degree and suppressed defendant's statements relating thereto, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the second count of the indictment reinstated and the motion to suppress defendant's statements is denied. Defendant's motions to dismiss the appeal and to strike the reply brief, respectively, are denied.
By indictment filed May 4, 1984, defendant was charged with bribery in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree. Specifically, it is alleged that he owned 3 1/4 ounces of cocaine found during an inventory search of his car which had been towed and impounded as "a scofflaw car." Subsequent to his arrest at the Department of Transportation car pound, defendant allegedly offered the arresting officers money as a bribe. One of the conversations between the accused and the officers pertaining to the bribe was tape recorded. In that statement, defendant repeatedly told the officers The offers were couched amidst disclaimers of intent to bribe the officers. At one juncture, defendant proposed to pay the officers in "appreciation" for their decision not to arrest defendant's girlfriend, who had been with him at the time of his arrest.
Defense counsel moved, inter alia, for inspection of the grand jury minutes and dismissal of the indictment and for suppression of defendant's statements to police on the ground that they were involuntarily made. On September 4, 1984, a justice presiding in a calendar part ruled that the grand jury minutes were sufficient to sustain the indictment. The cover to the grand jury minutes bears the handwritten inscription "grand jury minutes sufficient" followed by the date and the judge's initials.
At a combined Huntley/Mapp hearing commenced April 22, 1985, Justice Leff held that the prior court ruling regarding the jury minutes was "ineffective" in that "there was no complete compliance with" CPL 210.30(5) which requires that the court place on the record its ruling upon the motion to inspect. The court dismissed the bribery count finding that the evidence submitted to the grand jury was insufficient to support the charge. The court faulted the prosecutor for not introducing to the grand jury the tape recorded conversation which the court characterized as "exculpatory." Defendant's statements to the police, though held to have been voluntarily made and otherwise admissible, were suppressed as pertaining to the dismissed count of the indictment.
The People appeal, contending that the September 1984 ruling regarding the grand jury minutes complied with CPL 210.30(5). Arguing that they had no obligation to present the tape recorded conversation to the grand jury, the People seek reinstatement of the bribery count of the indictment and admission at trial of defendant's statements to the police.
Respondent counters that dismissal of the indictment is mandated because the People intentionally withheld from the grand jury the tape which revealed an absence of intent to bribe. He also contends that suppression of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hylton
...to exculpate the defendant ( Peo. v. Lancaster, supra, 69 N.Y.2d at 26, 511 N.Y.S.2d 559, 503 N.E.2d 990. See also, Peo. v. Townsend, 127 A.D.2d 505, 511 N.Y.S.2d 858; Peo. v. Isla, 96 A.D.2d 789, 466 N.Y.S.2d 16; Peo. v. Hill, 122 Misc.2d 895, 897, 471 N.Y.S.2d 826; Peo. v. Filis, 87 Misc.......
- People v. Pitts
-
People v. Moore
...of statements guarantees finality, and renders the filing of a statement pursuant to CPL 450.50 (1) unnecessary" ( People v. Townsend, 127 A.D.2d 505, 507, 511 N.Y.S.2d 858, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 1011, 517 N.Y.S.2d 1045, 511 N.E.2d 104; see, People v. Brooks, 54 A.D.2d 333, 336-337, 388 N.Y.......
-
People v. McIntosh
...is well settled that "CPL 450.50 is designed to limit appeals by the People from interlocutory suppression orders" (People v. Townsend, 127 A.D.2d 505, 507, 511 N.Y.S.2d 858; see, People v. Brooks, 54 A.D.2d 333, 388 N.Y.S.2d 450) by requiring the filing of a statement which indicates that ......