People v. Caporaso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caporaso

179 A.D.2d 668

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 13, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 668 (People v. Caporaso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Caporaso, 179 A.D.2d 668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[669]*669The defendant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the rejection of his justification defense and the resulting murder indictment were based on the perjured testimony of two witnesses at the Grand Jury proceedings. We disagree.

A Grand Jury proceeding is deemed defective and an indictment subject to dismissal under CPL 210.35 (5) only where "the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result” (People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 454). Although the two witnesses cited by the defendant somewhat downplayed their participation in the melee which eventually resulted in the bludgeoning death of their companion by the defendant, the claimed omissions were insignificant in nature and could have had no logical bearing on the rejection of the justification defense by the Grand Jury.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that the defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We find no merit to the defendant’s remaining contention. Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

[669]*669The defendant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the rejection of his justification defense and the resulting murder indictment were based on the perjured testimony of two witnesses at the Grand Jury proceedings. We disagree.

A Grand Jury proceeding is deemed defective and an indictment subject to dismissal under CPL 210.35 (5) only where "the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result” (People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 454). Although the two witnesses cited by the defendant somewhat downplayed their participation in the melee which eventually resulted in the bludgeoning death of their companion by the defendant, the claimed omissions were insignificant in nature and could have had no logical bearing on the rejection of the justification defense by the Grand Jury.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that the defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We find no merit to the defendant’s remaining contention. Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caporaso-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack