Regular Grand Jury v. Carillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Regular Grand Jury v. Carillo

19 A.D.2d 534, 240 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3830

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

DecidedMay 6, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 534 (Regular Grand Jury v. Carillo) 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

Regular Grand Jury v. Carillo, 19 A.D.2d 534, 240 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding by a Grand Jury under article 19 of the Judiciary Law (§ 750 et seq.) to adjudge a witness in criminal contempt of court for her refusal to answer certain questions before said Grand Jury on February 27, 1963, said witness appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 28, 1963 upon the court’s oral decision, after a hearing, which: (a) adjudged her guilty of criminal contempt of court; and (b) committed her to the New York City Women’s House of Detention for a term of 30 days. Order affirmed, without costs. The record shows that the Grand Jury was investigating a conspiracy to commit abortion as well as the substantive crimes of abortion and manslaughter. An offer of immunity is authorized in such a ease (Penal Law, §§ 584, 2447). Hence, when the appellant witness was offered immunity, she thereafter had no right to refuse to answer on the basis of her constitutional privilege, even though she might otherwise have been a prospective defendant [535]*535{Matter of Grand Jv/ry [Cioffi], 8 N Y 2d 220). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding by a Grand Jury under article 19 of the Judiciary Law (§ 750 et seq.) to adjudge a witness in criminal contempt of court for her refusal to answer certain questions before said Grand Jury on February 27, 1963, said witness appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 28, 1963 upon the court’s oral decision, after a hearing, which: (a) adjudged her guilty of criminal contempt of court; and (b) committed her to the New York City Women’s House of Detention for a term of 30 days. Order affirmed, without costs. The record shows that the Grand Jury was investigating a conspiracy to commit abortion as well as the substantive crimes of abortion and manslaughter. An offer of immunity is authorized in such a ease (Penal Law, §§ 584, 2447). Hence, when the appellant witness was offered immunity, she thereafter had no right to refuse to answer on the basis of her constitutional privilege, even though she might otherwise have been a prospective defendant [535]*535{Matter of Grand Jv/ry [Cioffi], 8 N Y 2d 220). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 534, 240 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regular-grand-jury-v-carillo-nyappdiv-1963.