People v. Martin, 47 N.Y.2d 982 (1979)
r
r
A witness’s statements, even if arguably perjurious, do not constitute contempt of court if they represent a bona fide effort to answer questions, especially when the witness has already provided unequivocal denials to the initial line of questioning.
r
r
Summary
r
Defendant was charged with contempt for allegedly providing evasive and false answers during a Grand Jury investigation. Specifically, the prosecution alleged the defendant was evasive regarding whether a Detective Keeley told him that Hugh Mulligan wanted Detective Sangiriardi assigned to a special unit. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s initial explicit denials were a bona fide attempt to answer and, even if later proven false, would be grounds for perjury, not contempt. The court emphasized that the defendant had already answered the questions with firmness and without equivocation; therefore, no obstruction of the Grand Jury proceedings occurred.
r
r
Facts
r
r
Defendant was called to testify before a Grand Jury.r
The Grand Jury was investigating a matter related to the possible transfer of Detective Sangiriardi.r
The specific line of questioning involved whether Detective Keeley informed the defendant that Hugh Mulligan desired Sangiriardi’s assignment to a special investigative unit.r
The defendant initially and expressly denied that Keeley told him about Mulligan’s request.r
The prosecution argued that subsequent answers were conspicuously evasive and patently false, warranting a contempt charge.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
The defendant was charged with a violation of section 215.50 of the Penal Law (criminal contempt).r
The trial court found the defendant guilty.r
The Appellate Division reversed the conviction.r
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
r
Whether a witness’s allegedly evasive or false answers to a Grand Jury constitute criminal contempt under Penal Law § 215.50 when the witness has already provided unequivocal denials to the initial questioning on the matter.r
r
r
Holding
r
r
No, because the defendant’s initial responses were a bona fide effort to answer the questions, and his subsequent testimony, even if perjurious, did not obstruct the Grand Jury proceedings as contemplated by Penal Law § 215.50.r
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant’s initial responses to the District Attorney’s inquiries expressly denied that Keeley told him Mulligan requested Sangiriardi’s transfer. The court determined that this explicit testimony was neither incredible as a matter of law nor patently false.r
r
The court distinguished the case from situations involving a refusal to answer, as contemplated by Penal Law § 215.50, citing People ex rel. Valenti v. McCloskey, 6 N.Y.2d 390, 402-403. The court emphasized that even if the later testimony was perjurious, it could not be deemed a refusal to answer. The proper charge would be perjury if the testimony was false.r
r
The court found that because the question had already been answered