People v. Meinecke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meinecke

194 A.D.2d 810, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6698

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

DecidedJune 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 810 (People v. Meinecke) 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. Meinecke, 194 A.D.2d 810, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated June 17, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Queens County Indictment No. 6444/90 against him on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

The proper standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence presented to the Grand Jury in support of an indictment is "whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury” (People v Jennings, [811]*81169 NY2d 103, 114; see also, People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 105). We find that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury in this case was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant sought to influence a witness to absent himself from, or to avoid or seek to avoid appearing before a Grand Jury, in exchange for money (see, Penal Law § 215.00).

Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from and reinstate the indictment. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated June 17, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Queens County Indictment No. 6444/90 against him on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

The proper standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence presented to the Grand Jury in support of an indictment is "whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury” (People v Jennings, [811]*81169 NY2d 103, 114; see also, People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 105). We find that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury in this case was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant sought to influence a witness to absent himself from, or to avoid or seek to avoid appearing before a Grand Jury, in exchange for money (see, Penal Law § 215.00).

Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from and reinstate the indictment. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 810, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meinecke-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack