3 No. 115
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Scott Hansen,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 107
October 19, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
J. Anthony Jordan, for appellant.
Robert M. Winn, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
In this prosecution for burglary and related charges, the issue is
whether a defendant who pleaded guilty forfeited the right to contend
that the fact-finding process of the Grand Jury, culminating in an
indictment against him, was impaired by the prosecutor's introduction
of inadmissible hearsay.
During the Grand Jury presentation, the complainant, Harold Stickney,
testified that, shortly after midnight his wife awoke him after
hearing noises outside their home, and called 911; that he saw
defendant on their back porch holding a snow shovel; that he watched
as defendant unsuccessfully tried to open the sliding glass door to
the house, then kicked it in; and that, after pointing an antique gun
at defendant, the two struggled and the police arrived. Washington
County Deputy Sheriff Scott Stark testified that, at the scene, he saw
Stickney on the ground, and also heard someone running from the house
in the snow, whereupon he and his partners chased and apprehended
defendant. According to Stark, defendant stated he was on the Stickney
property to shovel snow.
Defendant testified on his own behalf before the Grand Jury, admitting
a history of alcohol and drug abuse. He claimed that on the night of
the incident, he was "all strung out" on prescription medication, felt
"extremely paranoid" and wanted to get some fresh air to cool down.
Defendant acknowledged going onto the Stickney property, first to the
garage and then to the porch, where he picked up a blue shovel that,
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
In this prosecution for burglary and related charges, the issue is whether a defendant who
Washington County Deputy Sheriff Scott Stark testified that, at the scene, he saw Stickney on
defendant stated he was on the Stickney property to shovel snow.
the prosecutor played a portion of a videotaped television newscast containing first a
The reporter's full remarks, about a minute in length, noted that elderly homeowners had
The prosecutor played two portions of these remarks --the record does not reveal which
At the conclusion of the proceedings, the prosecutor instructed the grand jurors that "only
The motion court found that the prosecutor had played the reporter's remarks inadvertently,
Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to one count of attempted first degree burglary and the
A plea of guilty, as we have repeatedly observed, generally marks the end of a criminal case,
This is so because a defendant's "conviction rests directly on the sufficiency of his plea,
A guilty plea does not, however, extinguish every claim on appeal.
Defendant's claim, actually a matter of forfeiture, does not activate a question of
In this case, the Grand Jury returned a valid and sufficient accusatory instrument enabling
a defendant may not forfeit a claim of a constitutional defect implicating the integrity of
While his constitutional right to be prosecuted on a jurisdictionally valid indictment
the prosecutor knowingly allowed the defendant to enter a guilty plea to a marijuana offense
The prosecutor's knowledge that the only evidence supporting the accusatory instrument was
|
