People v. Ianniello, 36 N.Y.2d 138 (1975)
r
r
In a criminal contempt case stemming from a Grand Jury investigation, the legality and propriety of the questions asked of the defendant is a question of law to be determined by the court, although the court should instruct the jury on that element as it does on any other question of law.
r
r
Summary
r
Ianniello was convicted of criminal contempt for evasive testimony before a Grand Jury investigating bribery. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by charging the jury that the legality and propriety of the Grand Jury questions were established as a matter of law. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that whether questions are legal and proper is indeed a question of law for the court to decide. Although the jury ultimately decides guilt, the court must instruct the jury on legal matters, and the jury cannot disregard the court’s instruction on this question of law.
r
r
Facts
r
Defendant Ianniello, owner of two bars in Manhattan, was called to testify before a Grand Jury investigating a bribery conspiracy involving police and State Liquor Authority officials. He was questioned about conversations with a friend and a police sergeant concerning an investigation of the friend. Ianniello claimed he couldn’t recall the conversations. His purported inability to recall formed the basis of his indictment on criminal contempt charges.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Supreme Court initially dismissed the indictment, arguing denial of right to counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed on different grounds (defendant’s immunity as a target). The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the indictment, holding Ianniello was subject to prosecution for evasive testimony. After trial, Ianniello was convicted on three counts of criminal contempt. The Appellate Division affirmed. This appeal followed, focusing on whether the legality and propriety of the questions was a matter of law or fact for the jury.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether, in a criminal contempt case based on a witness’s testimony before a grand jury, the legality and propriety of the questions posed to the witness is a question of fact for the jury or a question of law for the court.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the determination of whether the questions were “legal and proper” requires an assessment of legal principles, making it a question of law for the court, though the court must instruct the jury on that element as it does on any other question of law.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court reasoned that the statute defines criminal contempt as a “contumacious and unlawful refusal… to answer any legal and proper interrogatory.” To be guilty, a witness need not flatly refuse to answer; evasive and false professions of inability to recall are also punishable. The court’s role is to determine questions of law; the jury’s, questions of fact. The court noted the analogy to perjury cases, where materiality is an element. While some New York cases incorrectly treat materiality as a question of fact for the jury (following People v. Clemente), most jurisdictions hold that materiality is a question of law. The court distinguished criminal contempt from perjury, stating analysis of the terms “legal and proper” in the contempt statute supports the view that these are questions of law. “Legal” questions don’t contravene any testimonial privilege or the privilege against self-incrimination. The court quoted Sinclair v. United States, stating that pertinency is akin to relevancy and materiality, which are uniformly held as questions of law. Although the trial court determines the legality and propriety of questions, it should instruct the jury on that element. “True, the jury may refuse to return a verdict of guilty…even where all the facts and the law are undisputed.” but “This does not mean, however, that the jury should be charged that it is free to disregard the court’s instruction on this question of law, anymore than on any other question of law.”