New York Law Review

People v. Fellman, 35 N.Y.2d 158 (1974): People’s Right to Appeal Dismissals in Non-Jury Trials

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

People v. Fellman, 35 N.Y.2d 158 (1974)

The People have the right to appeal a trial order of dismissal in both jury and non-jury cases when the dismissal is based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence.

Summary

These consolidated cases address whether the People can appeal a trial order of dismissal in a non-jury trial. In Fellman, the defendant was indicted for perjury. At the close of the People’s case, the trial court granted a trial order of dismissal, finding the evidence legally insufficient. In Sabella, the defendant requested a judgment of acquittal after a non-jury trial, which the court granted. The Court of Appeals held that the People may appeal a trial order of dismissal in both jury and non-jury cases when the dismissal is based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence. However, the court found that in Sabella, the defendant was acquitted on the merits, precluding appeal. In Fellman, the court found the dismissal was based on legal insufficiency and thus appealable, reinstating the indictment.

Facts

In Fellman:

  • Fellman, an architect, testified before a grand jury investigating corruption.
  • He stated that payments to Wingler, a health department employee, were legitimate fees for engineering services.
  • He specifically claimed a $1,000 check related to an alternate pool plan due to a soil failure.
  • At trial, Roberts, the pool project designer, testified there was no soil failure and the alternate plan was received earlier. Roberts further testified that Fellman told him that the payments were payoffs.
  • The People presented additional testimony contradicting Fellman’s claims.

In Sabella, the defendant was subpoenaed before a grand jury. He refused to answer questions, claiming illegal wiretap evidence was being used. He was subsequently indicted for contempt.

Procedural History

In Fellman:

  • The trial court granted Fellman’s motion for a trial order of dismissal.
  • The Appellate Division was divided on whether the circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated Roberts’ testimony, leaving the trial court’s order standing.

In Sabella:

  • The trial court granted the defendant’s request for a judgment of acquittal.
  • The Appellate Division dismissed the People’s appeal, holding that no appeal lies from a judgment on the merits in a criminal case.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the People may appeal from a trial order of dismissal in a non-jury case.

2. Whether the trial courts in Fellman and Sabella dismissed on the law or acquitted the defendants on the merits.

Holding

1. Yes, because CPL 450.20(2) applies to both jury and non-jury cases, authorizing the People to appeal a trial order of dismissal when a charge is dismissed due to insufficient evidence as a matter of law.

2. In Fellman, the court dismissed on the law, but erred in doing so. In Sabella, the court acquitted the defendant on the merits.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that CPL 450.20(2) allows the People to appeal trial orders of dismissal in both jury and non-jury cases. The Court acknowledged the difficulty in distinguishing legal from factual determinations in non-jury trials but stated that this is a normal part of the appellate process. Regarding Sabella, the Court determined that the defendant requested an acquittal, not a trial order of dismissal, and the court’s finding of insufficient proof of intent was based on the factual determination that the defendant acted in good faith, indicating an acquittal on the merits. The court stated, “Here the defendant was clearly acquitted on the merits and it matters not that the court chose to characterize the holding as a dismissal on the law, which the defendant in any event had not requested.” Allowing an appeal in Sabella would violate the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy.

In Fellman, the defendant explicitly requested a trial order of dismissal based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence. The court held that, for the purpose of the motion, all evidence favoring the People is deemed credible. The finding of insufficiency turned on the legal conclusion that the circumstantial evidence of corroboration in a perjury case must meet the standard applicable to cases based wholly on circumstantial proof. According to CPL 70.10(1), legally sufficient evidence is “competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged…” Therefore, the People have the right to appeal the dismissal. The court also clarified the standard for corroborating perjury testimony, stating that “the circumstantial evidence serves only to corroborate the direct testimony of a single witness, it need not exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt.” The court found that the evidence presented was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case of perjury.

The court quoted the Commission Staff Comment to Proposed CPL 150.20, noting that the change allowing the People to appeal “stems from the apparent injustice of denying the People any remedy when the trial court dismisses a charge during trial upon the basis of an erroneous determination of law that the trial evidence does not establish a prima facie case.”

More ARTICLES