People v. Campbell

683 N.E.2d 1051, 90 N.Y.2d 852, 661 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 1382
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 27, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 683 N.E.2d 1051 (People v. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Campbell, 683 N.E.2d 1051, 90 N.Y.2d 852, 661 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 1382 (N.Y. 1997).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[853]*853Defendant 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.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Related

People v. Vasquez
140 A.D.3d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
683 N.E.2d 1051, 90 N.Y.2d 852, 661 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 1382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-campbell-ny-1997.