 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS CPL INDICTMENT TESTIFY STATUTORY VOTE PRIOR JUDGE PRESENTMENT APPEARANCE DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPELLATE CHARGES AFFIRMING PROSECUTOR REASONS AD2D INTENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OQUENDO GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS COURT EVIDENCE RESPONDENT INTERPRETATION AFFORD FAILURE FILING TIMING |
THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. DAVID EVANS, RESPONDENT. / THE PEOPLE &C.,
APPELLANT, v. DANA DAVIS, RESPONDENT. / THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. JUAN
OQUENDO, RESPONDENT.
79 N.Y.2d 407, 592 N.E.2d 1362, 583 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1992).
May 7, 1992
2 No. 64
2 No. 65
2 No. 66
Decided May 7, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
John Castellano, for Appellants.
Laura Kreel Wexler, for Respondents.
BELLACOSA, J.:
The legal question common to these three cases arises out of the
interpretation and practical interplay between Criminal Procedure Law
(CPL) sections 190.50(5) and 180.80. CPL 190.50(5) affords individuals
preliminarily accused of crimes the right to testify before a Grand
Jury weighing the criminal charges against them provided that timely
notice is given by the accused. CPL 180.80 requires the release of
individuals being held in pretrial detention pending action of a Grand
Jury after 120 or 144 hours of custody unless, among other
neutralizing circumstances, an indictment has been voted.
The issue is whether these three defendants were deprived of their
statutory right to appear and testify before a Grand Jury under CPL
190.50(5) where, despite their written requests served on the People
at their arraignments on felony complaints, the prosecutor
nevertheless proceeded to present criminal charges to the Grand Jury
in order to avoid the automatic and imminent consequences of the
People's failure to satisfy CPL 180.80. We also consider whether the
statutory right to appear was satisfied when the prosecutor offered
these defendants the opportunity to have their say after the Grand
Jury had already voted to indict them.
Supreme Court, Queens County, dismissed each indictment. The Appellate
Division heard the three People's appeals together and affirmed for
the reasons stated in its Oquendo memorandum decision (People v
Oquendo, 172 AD2d 566; People v Evans, 172 AD2d 557; People v Davis,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
