People v. Caracciola

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Caracciola

78 N.Y.2d 1021

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 10, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by50 cases

This text of 78 N.Y.2d 1021 (People v. Caracciola) 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. Caracciola, 78 N.Y.2d 1021 (N.Y. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[1022]*1022OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We agree with Supreme Court and the Appellate Division that the prosecutor’s legal instructions were too confusing to have been understood by the Grand Jury in considering the charges, warranting dismissal of the indictment. While instructions to the Grand Jury need not be as precise as those given to a petit jury, they may not be so misleading or incomplete as to substantially undermine the integrity of the proceedings (see, People v Batashure, 75 NY2d 306, 311-312; People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 396; see also, CPL 210.35 [5]). The guidance provided by the prosecutor was not sufficient for the Grand Jury to carry out its function (see, People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

[1022]*1022OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We agree with Supreme Court and the Appellate Division that the prosecutor’s legal instructions were too confusing to have been understood by the Grand Jury in considering the charges, warranting dismissal of the indictment. While instructions to the Grand Jury need not be as precise as those given to a petit jury, they may not be so misleading or incomplete as to substantially undermine the integrity of the proceedings (see, People v Batashure, 75 NY2d 306, 311-312; People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 396; see also, CPL 210.35 [5]). The guidance provided by the prosecutor was not sufficient for the Grand Jury to carry out its function (see, People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 N.Y.2d 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caracciola-ny-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack