People v. Karl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Karl

41 A.D.2d 1001, 344 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310

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

DecidedMay 31, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 1001 (People v. Karl) 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. Karl, 41 A.D.2d 1001, 344 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County, entered June 27, 1972, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment. Defendant Karl and two others were indicted for robbery, second degree (Penal Law, § 160.10). The evidence before the Grand Jury that implicated defendant Karl in the robbery was supplied, in most part, by the investigating police officer. Karl had admitted being present at the time of the commission of the crime and implicated himself in the aspects of the actual robbery. CPL 190.65 (subd. 1) provides that a Grand Jury may indict when the evidence before it is legally sufficient to establish that such person committed such offense and competent and admissible evidence before it provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed such offense. Thus, what is now required is a prima facie case together with reasonable cause. When considering the testimony of the victim together with the admissions of the defendant Karl, it is clear that the evidence before the Grand Jury was sufficient to comply with the provisions of the statute. The objections raised by defendant are essentially matters which can be raised as defenses upon a trial. We conclude the indictment was improperly dismissed. Order reversed, on the law, and indictment reinstated. Staley, Jr., J. P., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County, entered June 27, 1972, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment. Defendant Karl and two others were indicted for robbery, second degree (Penal Law, § 160.10). The evidence before the Grand Jury that implicated defendant Karl in the robbery was supplied, in most part, by the investigating police officer. Karl had admitted being present at the time of the commission of the crime and implicated himself in the aspects of the actual robbery. CPL 190.65 (subd. 1) provides that a Grand Jury may indict when the evidence before it is legally sufficient to establish that such person committed such offense and competent and admissible evidence before it provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed such offense. Thus, what is now required is a prima facie case together with reasonable cause. When considering the testimony of the victim together with the admissions of the defendant Karl, it is clear that the evidence before the Grand Jury was sufficient to comply with the provisions of the statute. The objections raised by defendant are essentially matters which can be raised as defenses upon a trial. We conclude the indictment was improperly dismissed. Order reversed, on the law, and indictment reinstated. Staley, Jr., J. P., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 1001, 344 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-karl-nyappdiv-1973.