People v. Wilson, 11 N.Y.2d 421 (1962)

A dismissal under Section 667 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law, for failure to indict a defendant at the next term of court, does not bar a subsequent indictment for the same offense.

Summary

The defendant was initially charged with theft in Magistrate’s Court and released on bail pending grand jury action. After a significant delay, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Section 667 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law because he hadn’t been indicted. Before the motion was heard, the defendant was indicted on charges including the original theft charge. His motion to dismiss was denied, he pleaded guilty, and then appealed, arguing the indictment should have been dismissed under Section 667. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that a dismissal under Section 667 does not prevent a subsequent indictment for the same felony offense.

Facts

1. May 1959: Defendant arraigned in Magistrate’s Court on theft charge; examination waived; bail granted pending grand jury action.
2. April 1961: Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Section 667 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for failure to indict.
3. May 1961: Before the dismissal motion was heard, the defendant was indicted on multiple counts, including the original theft charge.
4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.
5. Defendant arraigned on the indictment, renewed motion to dismiss, which was denied.
6. Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge and appealed.

Procedural History

The County Court of Queens County convicted the defendant. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, setting aside the guilty plea and granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a dismissal under Section 667 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for failure to indict a defendant at the next term of court bars a subsequent indictment for the same offense, particularly when the indictment is handed up before the dismissal motion is heard.

Holding

No, because the statutory language of Section 667 does not mandate such a construction, and the fact of indictment before the dismissal motion is heard constitutes “good cause” for refusing to dismiss the charge.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that Section 667 allows the court to dismiss the “prosecution,” but this does not prevent a subsequent prosecution for the same crime. The court relied on People v. Dillon, 197 N.Y. 254, 256-257, interpreting similar language to mean that “that particular prosecution is terminated” without barring subsequent prosecution. The court stated that such a dismissal has no greater effect than a discharge by a magistrate on preliminary hearing, which does not affect the grand jury’s power to indict later. The fact that an indictment had been handed up before the dismissal motion was heard constituted “good cause” for refusing to dismiss the charge, citing People v. Pearsall, 6 Misc.2d 40. The court also compared Section 667 to Section 668 (dismissal for failure to try at the next term), where dismissal does not prevent reindictment, citing People v. Wilson, 8 N.Y.2d 391, 396. The court highlighted Section 673, which states that a dismissal under Chapter VII “is not a bar” to another prosecution for the same offense if the offense charged is a felony. The court concluded that a dismissal for failure to indict should not have more drastic consequences than a failure to bring to trial after indictment.