People v. Hawkins

New York Supreme Court

People v. Hawkins

170 Misc. 2d 604, 651 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1996 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 453

DecidedOctober 24, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 170 Misc. 2d 604 (People v. Hawkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hawkins, 170 Misc. 2d 604, 651 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1996 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 453 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Albert D. Koch, J.

[605]*605The defendant moves for an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and a dismissal of the indictment. This court has read the Grand Jury minutes and finds that the indictment must be dismissed.

After presenting evidence to the Grand Jury, the Assistant District Attorney gave the following instruction: "Before I read the charges I’m about to present to you, I’d like to inform you that you’ll be hearing additional evidence at a later time. Therefore, after you have deliberated on the charges that I’m about to present to you, you may not further deliberate on this matter until I have had an opportunity to present more evidence to you.”

The jury was then instructed to consider a single count of robbery in the first degree, on which it found a true bill. The Grand Jury was thereafter presented additional evidence and charges related thereto and returned a true bill with regard to those charges.

The court finds that the instruction impaired the integrity of the Grand Jury because it insinuated that there was additional incriminating evidence that had not yet been presented. Alerting the Grand Jury to the fact that other, possibly more incriminating evidence existed, was the equivalent of a prosecutor at trial arguing in summation that he has knowledge of matters not in evidence; a practice which has been condemned (People v Ivey, 83 AD2d 788). Accordingly, the first count of the indictment must be dismissed.

With respect to the remaining counts, the court finds that once the Grand Jury had found a true bill on the first count, it was predisposed to find a true bill on the additional counts (see, People v Evans, 79 NY2d 407). Because the initial true bill was improperly obtained, the court finds that the additional counts obtained were tainted by the initial illegality. Accordingly, the remaining counts are also dismissed. The People are granted leave to re-present.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Albert D. Koch, J.

[605]*605The defendant moves for an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and a dismissal of the indictment. This court has read the Grand Jury minutes and finds that the indictment must be dismissed.

After presenting evidence to the Grand Jury, the Assistant District Attorney gave the following instruction: "Before I read the charges I’m about to present to you, I’d like to inform you that you’ll be hearing additional evidence at a later time. Therefore, after you have deliberated on the charges that I’m about to present to you, you may not further deliberate on this matter until I have had an opportunity to present more evidence to you.”

The jury was then instructed to consider a single count of robbery in the first degree, on which it found a true bill. The Grand Jury was thereafter presented additional evidence and charges related thereto and returned a true bill with regard to those charges.

The court finds that the instruction impaired the integrity of the Grand Jury because it insinuated that there was additional incriminating evidence that had not yet been presented. Alerting the Grand Jury to the fact that other, possibly more incriminating evidence existed, was the equivalent of a prosecutor at trial arguing in summation that he has knowledge of matters not in evidence; a practice which has been condemned (People v Ivey, 83 AD2d 788). Accordingly, the first count of the indictment must be dismissed.

With respect to the remaining counts, the court finds that once the Grand Jury had found a true bill on the first count, it was predisposed to find a true bill on the additional counts (see, People v Evans, 79 NY2d 407). Because the initial true bill was improperly obtained, the court finds that the additional counts obtained were tainted by the initial illegality. Accordingly, the remaining counts are also dismissed. The People are granted leave to re-present.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 Misc. 2d 604, 651 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1996 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hawkins-nysupct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack