People v. Young
| Citation | 526 N.Y.S.2d 577,138 A.D.2d 764 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Karl YOUNG, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1988 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Andrew Zwerling, of counsel), for appellant.
Nelson W. Schmukler, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and BRACKEN, LAWRENCE and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), 136 Misc.2d 121, 518 N.Y.S.2d 319, dated June 26, 1987, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings, including disposition of the other branches of the defendant's omnibus motion.
On January 8, 1987, the defendant was arrested and charged in a felony complaint with criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree.
On January 9, 1987, the defendant was arraigned in the Criminal Court and he was served with a notice, pursuant to CPL 190.50(5)(a), advising him of his right to testify before the Grand Jury.
On January 14, 1987, the matter was presented to the Grand Jury and after hearing testimony and receiving evidence, the Grand Jury was charged on the relevant law and then voted to indict the defendant.
Thereafter, but prior to the filing of the indictment, the defendant, for the first time, orally requested an opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury. The prosecutor agreed to the defendant's request to appear before the Grand Jury and on January 30, 1987, the defendant testified before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was re-charged and again voted to indict the defendant. Subsequently, the indictment was filed charging the defendant with criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree.
Initially, we find that it was improper for the Supreme Court to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective because the prosecutor "reopene the case before the Grand Jury to permit the defendant to testify, without court authorization. This court has held that CPL 190.50(5)(a) provides that a defendant may exercise his right to appear before the Grand Jury by giving appropriate notice at any time prior to the filing of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Annucci
...district attorney of the county a written notice making such request and stating an address to which communications may be sent.”); Young, 526 N.Y.S.2d at 577 (explaining that a defendant is entitled to testify the grand jury so long as he notifies the State of his intention before the indi......
-
People v. Wilkerson
...two points are worth noting. First, unless the People have waived the statutory written notice requirement (see People v. Young, 138 A.D.2d 764, 765, 526 N.Y.S.2d 577 [1988], lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 868, 532 N.Y.S.2d 518, 528 N.E.2d 909 [1988] ), oral notice of a defendant's desire to testify ......
-
People v. Ocasio
...Nonetheless, the People may waive the requirement of a writing by accepting notice when it is given orally. People v. Young, 138 A.D.2d 764, 526 N.Y.S.2d 577 (2nd Dept.1988); People v. Gini, 72 A.D.2d 752, 421 N.Y.S.2d 269 (2nd Since prosecutors do not often respond to oral notice of an int......
-
People v. Clark
...who have previously testified” (People v. Cade, 74 N.Y.2d 410, 415, 548 N.Y.S.2d 137, 547 N.E.2d 339 ; see People v. Young, 138 A.D.2d 764, 764–765, 526 N.Y.S.2d 577, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 868, 532 N.Y.S.2d 518, 528 N.E.2d 909 ). We likewise reject defendant's contention that during his gran......