People v. Brown

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Brown

611 N.E.2d 271, 81 N.Y.2d 798, 595 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 80

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 11, 1993·Published·Cited by 512 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant’s claim — that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective due to the prosecutor’s reliance on legal instructions given earlier in the day to the same Grand Jury but with respect to different cases — is not preserved for our review. Defendant’s omnibus motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes did not specify the grounds now claimed and his sole argument to the trial court after inspection was that the prosecutor improperly usurped control of the grand jurors’ decision on what charges to vote.

Acting Chief Judge Simons and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant’s claim — that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective due to the prosecutor’s reliance on legal instructions given earlier in the day to the same Grand Jury but with respect to different cases — is not preserved for our review. Defendant’s omnibus motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes did not specify the grounds now claimed and his sole argument to the trial court after inspection was that the prosecutor improperly usurped control of the grand jurors’ decision on what charges to vote.

Acting Chief Judge Simons and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

People v. Brown, 611 N.E.2d 271, 81 N.Y.2d 798, 595 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 80 (N.Y. 1993).

Pincite

611 N.E.2d 271 (People v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related