 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
GRAND JURY DEFENDANT RESPONDENT MEMORANDUM CHARGE INDICTMENT CONVICTION ENLARGE MOTION YORK MURDER EVIDENCE ACCOMPLICE REQUEST REVIEW JUDGE REQUESTED PERMISSION CAMERA REVIEW ABUSE DISCRETION MATTER LAW CHIEF JUDGE KAYE JUDGES TITONE BELLACOSA SMITH LEVINE CIPARICK WESLEY CONCUR |
PEOPLE & C., RESPONDENT, v. GREGORY CAMPBELL, RESPONDENT.
90 N.Y.2d 852, 683 N.E.2d 1051, 661 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1997).
June 27, 1997
2 No. 133 (1997 NY Int. 123)
Decided June 27, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Laura Burde, for appellant.
Linda Cantoni, for respondent.
New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was charged with acting in concert with three other
individuals to commit two counts of murder in the second degree and
related crimes. The evidence before the Grand Jury included testimony
of an accomplice. Trial counsel moved to inspect the Grand Jury
minutes and for dismissal of the indictment upon the ground that a
failure to have given a proper accomplice corroboration charge would
be "fatal" to the indictment. After inspecting the minutes, the trial
court found the evidence before the Grand Jury legally sufficient to
support the charges contained in the indictment. Defendant was
subsequently convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in the second
degree and assault in the second degree.
Pending appeal of his conviction, defendant moved to enlarge the
record on appeal to include minutes of the Grand Jury proceedings.
Defendant included a request for the same relief in his brief to the
Appellate Division and also requested permission to file a
supplemental brief if necessary. The motion was referred to the panel
assigned to hear the appeal, to be determined after an in camera
review of the entire minutes. After review, the Appellate Division
denied the motion to enlarge the record and affirmed defendant's
conviction and sentence.
Contrary to defendant's arguments, the Appellate Division's denial of
his motion to enlarge the record did not deprive him of his due
process right to a meaningful appeal nor under the circumstances of
this case did it constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
