People v. Wilkins

• Decision Date: 21 October 1986
• Citation: 508 N.Y.S.2d 893,501 N.E.2d 542,68 N.Y.2d 269
• Parties: , 501 N.E.2d 542 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Curtis WILKINS, Also Known as Curtis Williams, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 893

508 N.Y.S.2d 893

68 N.Y.2d 269, 501 N.E.2d 542

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Curtis WILKINS, Also Known as Curtis Williams, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 21, 1986.

Michael A. Gross and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Susan Corkery and Amyjane Rettew, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WACHTLER, Chief Judge.

This appeal requires us to determine whether a prosecutor may withdraw a case from the Grand Jury after presentation of the evidence, and resubmit the case to a second Grand Jury without the consent of either the first Grand Jury or the court which impaneled it. We conclude that such withdrawal is the equivalent of a dismissal by the first Grand Jury, and that the prosecution may only resubmit the charges with the consent of the court. We, therefore, reverse the order of the Appellate Division, 110 A.D.2d 1093, 488 N.Y.S.2d 942, and dismiss the indictment with leave to the District Attorney to apply for an order permitting resubmission of the charges to another Grand Jury.

The defendant was charged with murder in the second degree after fatally shooting his victim during a dispute. His case was presented to a Grand Jury, but it was withdrawn before a vote on whether to issue an indictment. Presentation of the case to a second Grand Jury resulted in an indictment charging the defendant with murder in the second degree. A trial on that charge ended in a mistrial when the jury announced it could not reach a verdict.

During that trial, defense counsel learned of the prosecutor's withdrawal and resubmission of the case. After the mistrial, the defendant moved for an evidentiary hearing on the circumstances of the resubmission. Granting the motion, the court concluded that there was no statute controlling whether the People could "abort a Grand Jury presentation in progress, and under what circumstances * * * Therefore, in the opinion of the court, each situation must be examined individually to determine whether the prosecution's conduct was proper within the facts of that case or whether it was merely a pretext to circumvent the function of the Grand Jury." (95 Misc.2d 737, 739, 408 N.Y.S.2d 291.)

The hearing court concluded that the prosecutor acted in good faith in withdrawing the matter from the first Grand Jury, based on the following findings: The main reason the prosecutor withdrew the matter was his inability to produce two witnesses the Grand Jury requested, the arresting officer and a witness then known only as Freida. ¹ The detective assigned to locate her could not find Freida, and the Appearance Control Board (the Police Department's liaison with the District Attorney's office) informed the prosecutor that the arresting officer was either on terminal leave or vacation and in any event could not be produced. Meanwhile, the prosecutor was directed to proceed to trial on another matter. On the last day of the first Grand Jury's term, therefore, he asked another assistant to withdraw the case. The withdrawal was without the consent of the Grand Jury or the court.

After the mistrial, the defendant was tried a second time and convicted upon a jury verdict of first degree manslaughter. Sentence was imposed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, without opinion. The sole ground tendered on this appeal in support of the defendant's claim for reversal is the withdrawal and resubmission of the charges against him at the Grand Jury level. Were the subjective good faith of the prosecutor in withdrawing and resubmitting the charges against the defendant the dispositive issue on this appeal, we would summarily affirm. The undisturbed finding of the hearing court that the prosecutor acted in good faith is beyond the review powers of this court if, as here, it is supported by evidence in the record (see, e.g., People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 477, 457 N.Y.S.2d 199, 443 N.E.2d 447).

That the prosecutor acted in good faith does not resolve the issue whether he had the legal authority to act, however. At common law a prosecutor could resubmit charges without limitation to successive Grand Juries until one voted an indictment (People ex rel. Flinn v. Barr, 259 N.Y. 104, 107-108, 181 N.E. 64; Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 190.75, pp 342, 343). However, just as the Grand Jury serves to insulate citizens from prosecutorial excesses (People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 104 476 N.Y.S.2d 79, 464 N.E.2d 447; People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 594, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656), the Legislature recognized a need to insulate the Grand Jury process from the excesses which would flow from domination by a prosecutor (see, People v. Di Falco, 44 N.Y.2d 482, 487, 406 N.Y.S.2d 279, 377 N.E.2d 732). The result was section 270 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibited the resubmission of dismissed charges without leave of court (People ex rel. Flinn v. Barr, supra, 259 N.Y. at p. 108, 181 N.E. 64). It became further necessary to curb the power of the courts, as well, which the Legislature did by limiting the number of authorized resubmissions to one (Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 190.75, p. 343). ² Thus, if the withdrawal of this case from the first Grand Jury is the equivalent of a dismissal by that Grand Jury of the charges against the defendant, the prosecutor could not lawfully resubmit the matter without leave of the court.

The comprehensive statutory scheme regulating Grand Jury proceedings does not contemplate the termination of deliberations without some action by the Grand Jury. Thus, CPL 190.60 gives the Grand Jury a limited range of dispositions after hearing and examining evidence, ³ including either indicting the defendant or dismissing the charges. In this case, the required concurrence of 12 grand jurors to a dismissal (CPL 190.25 ) ⁴ was not obtained because the question was not put to a vote.

Generally once a Grand Jury hears evidence in a case presented to it, the key factor in determining whether an unauthorized withdrawal of the case must be treated as a dismissal is the extent to which the Grand Jury considered the evidence and the charge. Thus, where a particular charge had not even been presented to a Grand Jury considering another charge against the defendant, this court held the first charge could not be considered dismissed: "Before a grand jury may be said to have acted upon a charge, there must be some indication that it knew about and considered the charge" (People v. Nelson, 298 N.Y. 272, 276, 82 N.E.2d 573; see also, People ex rel. Raimondi v. Jackson, 277 A.D. 924, 98 N.Y.S.2d 506, lv. denied 301 N.Y. 816). However, the presentation need not be complete for consideration equivalent to a dismissal to occur. In Mooney v. Cahn, 79 Misc.2d 703, 361 N.Y.S.2d 118, for example, the prosecutor failed to direct the Grand Jury to act on the evidence he had presented; nonetheless, the court declined to allow the District Attorney to continue the prosecutions (79 Misc 2d, at p 706, 361 N.Y.S.2d 118). In Matter of McGinley v. Hynes, 75 A.D.2d 897, 428 N.Y.S.2d 57, revd. on other grounds 51 N.Y.2d 116, 432 N.Y.S.2d 689, 412 N.E.2d 376, cert. denied 450 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 1364, 67 L.Ed.2d 344, the court held there had been the equivalent of a dismissal on facts nearly identical to those in the case now before us--withdrawal of a case near the end of the presentation of the evidence and before giving either a charge or an instruction to deliberate.

In the case before us, the first presentation was, as far as the prosecution was concerned, complete. Contrary to the assertions of the dissent, the District Attorney need not have formally rested and charged the Grand Jury before that body may be held to have considered and acted upon the charge. Indeed, in Matter of McGinley v. Hynes, 75 A.D.2d 897, 428 N.Y.S.2d 57, supra, it was clearly held that the Grand Jury had heard and considered enough to render the withdrawal of the case equivalent to a dismissal, even though the prosecutor conceded that he had not finished presenting his case and certainly could not at that point have formally instructed the Grand Jury on the law. Moreover, the Appellate Division in McGinley, while concluding that the prosecutor's unauthorized resubmission to a second Grand Jury was improper, found that his estimate to the first Grand Jury that he had only a few more witnesses to present was "either erroneous or misleading", which is hardly an explicit finding of bad faith.

Here, the presentation had progressed further than that in McGinley--as far as the prosecutor was concerned, all witnesses had testified, and all that was left was to instruct the Grand Jury on the law. This progress was what compelled the court in McGinley, and what compels us in this case, to hold that the prosecutor's unilateral withdrawal so late in the game must be deemed a dismissal, regardless of the good faith of the withdrawal. Such conclusion is in keeping with the "beneficent purpose" of CPL 190.75(3), which "must be interpreted fairly to carry out the policy which it was enacted to accomplish" and which "should not be nullified by a narrow technical construction which would * * * destroy its spirit" (People ex rel. Flinn v. Barr, 259 N.Y. at pp. 109, 108, 181 N.E. 64, supra).

The dissent and the People can cite no authority which directly supports the contention that the District Attorney possesses inherent power to withdraw a case from Grand Jury consideration. ⁵ This lack of any judicial or legislative acknowledgement of authority is understandable. An explicit recognition of such power by this court would furnish the prosecutor the means of defeating CPL 190.75(3) in almost every case by withdrawing all but "open and shut" cases and resubmitting them after further preparation or a more...