People v. Falcon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Falcon

204 A.D.2d 181, 612 N.Y.S.2d 130

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

DecidedMay 19, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 181 (People v. Falcon) 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. Falcon, 204 A.D.2d 181, 612 N.Y.S.2d 130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), entered March 29, 1993, which granted the People’s motion to reargue a prior order dismissing the indictment on the ground that the Grand Jury proceeding was so unfair as to be defective within the meaning of CPL 210.35 (5), with leave to re-present and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from the order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 5, 1993, unanimously dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the order of March 29, 1993.

Arrested for murder, defendant gave a statement that was reduced by the interrogating detective into a brief one-page synopsis and signed by defendant. Defendant then agreed to give a videotaped statement, which was taken at the precinct several hours later in the presence of the same detective and two Assistant District Attorneys. This statement was consistent with the first but provided much greater detail of the incident, including facts that raised a justification defense. The prosecutor introduced the one-page summary but not the videotape to the Grand Jury.

While "[t]he People generally enjoy wide discretion in presenting their case to the Grand Jury * * * and are not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in their possession that is favorable to the accused”, "[t]he prosecutor’s discretion * * * however, is not unbounded, for it is settled that at a Grand Jury proceeding, the prosecutor performs the dual role of advocate and public [182]*182officer, charged with the duty not only to secure indictments but also to see that justice is done” (People v Lancaster, 69 NY2d 20, 25-26, 26, cert denied 480 US 922). Having elected to introduce the written statement, the prosecutor was obligated to introduce the videotaped statement as well, which, given during the course of a continuous interrogation, merely amplified the written statement (see, People v Rodriguez, 188 AD2d 566), and contained facts sufficient to support the defense of justification that the People were required to charge (cf, People v Mitchell, 82 NY2d 509). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), entered March 29, 1993, which granted the People’s motion to reargue a prior order dismissing the indictment on the ground that the Grand Jury proceeding was so unfair as to be defective within the meaning of CPL 210.35 (5), with leave to re-present and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from the order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 5, 1993, unanimously dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the order of March 29, 1993.

Arrested for murder, defendant gave a statement that was reduced by the interrogating detective into a brief one-page synopsis and signed by defendant. Defendant then agreed to give a videotaped statement, which was taken at the precinct several hours later in the presence of the same detective and two Assistant District Attorneys. This statement was consistent with the first but provided much greater detail of the incident, including facts that raised a justification defense. The prosecutor introduced the one-page summary but not the videotape to the Grand Jury.

While "[t]he People generally enjoy wide discretion in presenting their case to the Grand Jury * * * and are not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in their possession that is favorable to the accused”, "[t]he prosecutor’s discretion * * * however, is not unbounded, for it is settled that at a Grand Jury proceeding, the prosecutor performs the dual role of advocate and public [182]*182officer, charged with the duty not only to secure indictments but also to see that justice is done” (People v Lancaster, 69 NY2d 20, 25-26, 26, cert denied 480 US 922). Having elected to introduce the written statement, the prosecutor was obligated to introduce the videotaped statement as well, which, given during the course of a continuous interrogation, merely amplified the written statement (see, People v Rodriguez, 188 AD2d 566), and contained facts sufficient to support the defense of justification that the People were required to charge (cf, People v Mitchell, 82 NY2d 509). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 181, 612 N.Y.S.2d 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-falcon-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack