 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RECONSIDER CHARGE COURT VOTE CPL PROSECUTOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY DISMISS RESUBMIT ROBBERY CHARGE SUA SPONTE APPELLATE BROOME COUNTY ASSAULT INDICTMENT OPINION TRUE BILL DEFENDANT ASSISTANT DISTRICT JURORS APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSE JUDGE LAW NY2D PRACTICE SUPRA ACCORDANCE VOTE SHEET |
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. GULBERTO MONTANEZ, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 690, 687 N.E.2d 1345, 665 N.Y.S.2d 62 (1997).
November 20, 1997
3 No. 226
(97 NY Int. 0192)
Decided November 20, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Scott A. Kurkoski, for appellant.
Joseph F. Romani, for respondent.
WESLEY, J.:
The issue before us is whether a Grand Jury may, without court
permission pursuant to CPL 190.75(3), reconsider its vote of a no true
bill under circumstances which incontrovertibly indicate prosecutorial
involvement in the Grand Jury's deliberative process. We conclude that
it may not.
On September 8, 1995, defendant and two other men wentto the apartment
of Lee in the Village of Endicott and allegedly beat him up and took
money from him. Defendant was arrested and charged with second degree
robbery. The case was initially presented to a Grand Jury on Tuesday,
October 17, 1995. The Broome County Assistant District Attorney who
presented the case instructed the Grand Jury on second degree robbery,
and also petit larceny and third degree assault as lesser included
offenses. After three preliminary votes, the Grand Jury voted 12 to 10
that a no true bill be filed on the robbery charge, and directed that
a prosecutor's information be filed on the assault charge. A vote
sheet indicating the vote was given to the Assistant District
Attorney. Upon receiving the sheet the Assistant (who acknowledged
later that he was "surprised" by the vote) shook his head and walked
out of the room in apparent disbelief.
Although the Grand Jury had voted a no true bill on the robbery charge
(and indeed, defendant's counsel had been so advised (n.1) ) the
vote was never filed as a finding of dismissal under CPL 190.75(1).
The following day the District Attorney spoke to the Grand Jury at its
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
