Dondi v. Jones, 40 N.Y.2d 16 (1976)
A Special Prosecutor’s jurisdiction, when superseding a District Attorney, is limited to the scope defined by the Governor’s Executive Order, and does not extend beyond the explicitly stated subject matter, such as the criminal justice system.
Summary
Dondi, an attorney, was indicted by a Grand Jury of the Extraordinary Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court in Queens County for bribery. He allegedly offered a police officer money to alter testimony in a civil case. Dondi sought to prohibit the Special Prosecutor from trying him, arguing the prosecutor lacked jurisdiction because the alleged bribe was unrelated to the enforcement of law or the administration of criminal justice. The Court of Appeals held that the Special Prosecutor’s jurisdiction, as defined by the Executive Order, was limited to corruption within the criminal justice system, and thus did not extend to Dondi’s alleged actions in a civil matter. The Court modified the Appellate Division’s judgment to allow prosecution by the Queens County District Attorney.
Facts
Dondi, an attorney, allegedly offered money to Police Officer Gaughn to change his testimony in a proposed civil case involving Dondi’s client, Evans. Gaughn, cooperating with the Special Prosecutor, met with Dondi and accepted funds for the altered testimony. The Grand Jury indicted Dondi for bribery, but Dondi argued the Special Prosecutor lacked jurisdiction under Executive Order 57.
Procedural History
Dondi moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the Special Prosecutor lacked jurisdiction. The Extraordinary Term initially denied the motion. Dondi moved for reargument, and the court stood by its decision, but suggested the case would be better handled by the District Attorney. Dondi’s subsequent motion before respondent Jones was also denied. Dondi then initiated this prohibition proceeding, which the Appellate Division granted, dismissing the indictment. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Special Prosecutor had the authority under Executive Order 57 to present evidence against and prosecute Dondi for bribery when the alleged bribe related to a civil case and not to the enforcement of law or administration of criminal justice in the City of New York.
Holding
No, because Executive Order 57 limited the Special Prosecutor’s jurisdiction to acts connected with the enforcement of law or administration of criminal justice, and Dondi’s alleged attempt to bribe a witness in a civil matter did not fall within that scope.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals addressed whether prohibition was an appropriate remedy, noting it lies only where there is a clear legal right and the body acts without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court considered the gravity of the harm, the availability of other remedies, and the remedial effectiveness of prohibition. The court determined that prohibition was appropriate here due to the importance of clarifying the Special Prosecutor’s jurisdictional limits. The court emphasized that it was acting within its discretion, considering the desirability of promptly settling an important jurisdictional question.
The court then interpreted Executive Order 57, which authorized the Attorney-General to investigate and prosecute acts related to “corrupt acts or omissions by a public servant…arising out of, relating to or in any way connected with the enforcement of law or administration of criminal justice in the City of New York.” The court reasoned that the order’s focus was on acts connected with the criminal justice system, not the judicial system in general. The court cited People v. Sam, 49 A.D.2d 732, where the court held that corrupt acts of transit authority police officers that did not relate to enforcement of law or administration of criminal justice, fell outside the Special Prosecutor’s jurisdiction.
The court also pointed to a joint statement by the Special Prosecutor and District Attorneys, indicating the intent of the order was to supersede only in cases dealing with corruption relating “strictly to the criminal justice process.” The court quoted Governor Rockefeller’s statement expressing approval of the agreement and stating “The scope of the Special Prosecutor’s assignment is to investigate and prosecute corruption at all levels of the criminal justice system”.
Based on the Executive Order’s language, the intent behind its issuance (corruption in the criminal justice process), and the agreement between the Special Prosecutor and the District Attorneys, the Court concluded that the Special Prosecutor’s jurisdiction did not extend to Dondi’s alleged attempt to bribe a witness in a purely civil action. The court reasoned the District Attorney of Queens County should undertake prosecution.