Matter of Smith v. Foley, 27 N.Y.2d 4 (1970)
Under the New York State Constitution, a defendant charged with a felony cannot waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the District Attorney.
Summary
This case addresses whether a defendant charged with a felony in New York can waive their right to a grand jury indictment and be prosecuted based on an information filed by the District Attorney. The Court of Appeals held that such a waiver is not permissible under the New York State Constitution. The court reaffirmed its prior holding in People ex rel. Battista v. Christian, emphasizing that the constitutional requirement of a grand jury indictment for felony prosecutions is a fundamental right that cannot be waived. The court reasoned that the state has a vested interest in ensuring that a grand jury, rather than solely a prosecutor, determines whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant a felony trial.
Facts
Clarence Smith was charged with both a misdemeanor (narcotic drug possession) and a felony (possession of a loaded weapon) in Nassau County. The District Attorney filed an information in the County Court charging Smith with both crimes, intending to test the validity of waiving grand jury indictment for felonies. Smith, represented by counsel and informed of his right to a grand jury presentation, waived that right and consented to prosecution on the felony information.
Procedural History
The foreman of the Nassau County Court Grand Jury initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division seeking to prohibit the District Attorney from prosecuting Smith on the felony information and to prevent the County Court Judges from trying him without a grand jury indictment. The Appellate Division agreed with the petitioner, holding that the County Court lacked jurisdiction due to the constitutional prohibition against felony prosecutions without a grand jury indictment. The District Attorney appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant charged with a felony can waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the District Attorney, consistent with Article I, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution.
Holding
No, because the New York State Constitution explicitly prohibits prosecuting a defendant for a felony without a grand jury indictment; this right is not waivable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals upheld the Appellate Division’s decision, reaffirming the principle established in People ex rel. Battista v. Christian that the right to a grand jury indictment for felony prosecutions is a fundamental right that cannot be waived. The court emphasized that Article I, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime * * * unless on indictment of a grand jury.” The court rejected the argument that the doctrine of stare decisis should be abandoned in this instance, asserting that the principles established in Battista remain valid and relevant. The court quoted Battista: “Unqualifiedly, it prohibits the trial of any one charged with infamous crime except on * * * indictment by a grand jury. Until the grand jury shall act, no court can acquire jurisdiction to try.”
The court reasoned that the purpose of the grand jury requirement is not merely to protect the individual defendant, but also to ensure that the People as a whole have the right to demand that facts indicating the commission of a felony are presented to a grand jury for evaluation. The court acknowledged criticisms of the grand jury system but emphasized that the constitutional provision explicitly requires indictment by a grand jury for felony prosecutions. The Court also highlighted that multiple attempts to amend the constitution to allow for waiver have failed. Until the Constitution is amended, the court reasoned, the right to indictment is not waivable. The court noted the parallel to the right to a jury trial, which was also unwaivable until the constitution was amended to explicitly allow waiver. The court emphasized the state’s interest in protecting the rights of the accused, ensuring a responsible and objective body (the grand jury) decides if evidence warrants a trial. The court stated, “[T]he People of the State of New York, by constitutional provision, and the courts, by decisional law, have solemnly and deliberately determined that it is preferable to have a responsible and objective group such as the grand jury, rather than a prosecutor alone, decide whether the evidence at hand is such ‘as * * * would * * * warrant a conviction by the trial jury’ before subjecting the defendant to the jeopardy of prosecution and conviction.”