83 N.Y.2d 675 (1994)
A military court-martial constitutes a “court” within the meaning of New York’s statutory double jeopardy protections (CPL 40.30(1)), thus barring subsequent state prosecutions for the same offense.
Summary
Two soldiers, Booth and Bridgewater, were court-martialed by the U.S. Army for offenses they committed off-base in New York. Subsequently, they were indicted by a New York county grand jury for the same conduct. Both soldiers sought dismissal of the indictments based on New York’s statutory double jeopardy protections. The New York Court of Appeals held that the prior military court-martials barred the state prosecutions because a military tribunal constitutes a “court” under CPL 40.30(1). This decision reinforces New York’s broader statutory double jeopardy protections compared to constitutional double jeopardy, emphasizing that a prior trial in a federal forum (including a military court) will generally bar a subsequent state prosecution for the same offense.
Facts
Sergeant Booth was charged by the Army with rape, sodomy, indecent assault, and providing alcohol to a minor for conduct against his 13-year-old niece in New York. He was convicted of indecent assault by a military court-martial. Subsequently, he was indicted by a Jefferson County Grand Jury for rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, endangering the welfare of a child, and incest, all stemming from the same incident.
Sergeant Bridgewater was indicted by a Jefferson County Grand Jury for two counts of murder related to the death of his two-month-old son. Prior to the indictment, he pleaded guilty before a military tribunal to involuntary manslaughter by culpable negligence and was sentenced to imprisonment for one year.
Procedural History
Booth and Bridgewater moved to dismiss their respective indictments on statutory double jeopardy grounds. The County Court denied both motions. Booth and Bridgewater then commenced prohibition proceedings in the Appellate Division, which granted the writs, preventing the District Attorney from prosecuting them. The District Attorney appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a military tribunal is a “court…of any jurisdiction within the United States” within the meaning of CPL 40.30(1), such that a prior court-martial bars a subsequent state prosecution for the same conduct.
Holding
Yes, because a military court-martial constitutes a “court” under CPL 40.30(1), and New York’s statutory double jeopardy protections are broader than the constitutional protections and bar successive prosecutions in this context.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that New York’s statutory double jeopardy protections, found in CPL 40.20 and 40.30, are broader than the constitutional double jeopardy protections. CPL 40.30(1) defines when a person is “prosecuted” for an offense, stating that it occurs when charged by an accusatory instrument filed in a “court of this state or of any jurisdiction within the United States.” The court relied on prior precedent holding that a court-martial adjudication may serve as a prior felony for second felony offender sentencing purposes. The court also noted that if a state prosecution is preceded by a federal prosecution in a federal district court, the New York prosecution is barred. The Court reasoned that, like a federal district court, a military tribunal exerts all its powers under the same government, that of the United States, quoting Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333, 355: “powers under and by authority of the same government — that of the United States”. The court found that a general court-martial is a prior prosecution that prohibits a subsequent indictment by the United States for the same offense as violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause (citing Grafton v. United States). Thus, for federal constitutional double jeopardy purposes, a military court-martial is treated as the equivalent of a federal district court judgment. The court stated: “We conclude, therefore, that in the absence of any statutory exclusion under New York’s CPL article 40, a court-martial tribunal is a court within the meaning of CPL 40.30 (1), and the prior prosecutions in each case bar the appellant District Attorney from proceeding under the indictments for the identical crimes as violations of New York’s Penal Law.