PEOPLE , & C., RESPONDENT, v. MATTHEW ADESSA, APPELLANT.
89 N.Y.2d 677, 680 N.E.2d 134, 657 N.Y.S.2d 863 (1997).
March 27, 1997
2 No. 23 (1997 NY Int. 42)
Decided March 27, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Vincent F. Nicolosi, for Appellant.
Alexander H. Gardner, for Respondent.
New York State District Attorneys Association, amicus curiae.
TITONE, J.:
The issue in this appeal is whether it is inherently prejudicial to
obtain an indictment against a civilian defendant from the same Grand
Jury that has also been asked to consider a police misconduct charge
arising out of the same incident. On this appeal, defendant contends
that such a presentment procedure so impairs the integrity of the
Grand Jury proceeding as to taint the indidctment. Finding no concrete
prejudice resulting from the "dual slip" presentment in this case, we
conclude that the indictment against defendant was properly upheld.
According to the evidence presented to the Grand Jury as described in
the opinions below, defendant entered a Queens gas station at about
4:50 a.m. on the morning of October 2, 1993. Having been asked to pay
in advance for his gas, defendant reentered his vehicle and sped away.
In the process, he allegedly hit another car that was parked at the
gas station and nearly struck a security guard who was attempting to
record his license plate number.
Two police officers in an unmarked vehicle observed defendant's hasty
departure from the gas station. Believing that a robbery may have
occurred, they chased defendant through several traffic lights,
flashing their headlights and using an attachable rotating red light.
When defendant's vehicle finally came to a stop, the officers exited
their car and identified themselves. At that point, the officers saw
the back-up lights on defendant's vehicle flash on and, fearful that
defendant was about to back into them, the officers returned to their
car. Defendant sped off again and the chase resumed, terminating only
when defendant brought his vehicle to a stop in the right hand lane of
the Long Island Expressway.
SNIPPETS:
Vincent F. Nicolosi, for Appellant.
Alexander H. Gardner, for Respondent.
New York State District Attorneys Association, amicus curiae.
The issue in this appeal is whether it is inherently prejudicial to obtain an indictment
defendant contends that such a presentment procedure so impairs the integrity of the Grand
Finding no concrete prejudice resulting from the "dual slip" presentment in this case, we
Noting the prospect of a conflict arising from the existence of defendant's cross-complaint,
On November 10, 1993, the matter was presented to a Grand Jury as a "dual slip" presentment,
Defense counsel's affirmation alleged, among other things, that defendant had been unaware
Counsel argued that the Grand Jury proceeding was "tainted" because defendant, the only
Nonetheless, the court concluded that the People had breached their obligation of fairness by
On the People's appeal, however, the Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the
It is beyond dispute that the Grand Jury has the dual role of investigating crimes and
If the prosecutor had followed the course defendant advocates and presented the cases to
The only right defendant had in this regard was the right conferred by CPL 190.50to testify
The dissent's call for deference to the trial court is particularly puzzling because the
The dissent's assertion of prejudice only begs that question and certainly does not serve to
|
