People v. Menna, 25 N.Y.2d 475 (1969)

When a grand jury investigates a conspiracy to commit a crime for which immunity can be granted, a witness who is granted immunity receives transactional immunity for any crimes revealed by their testimony, even if those crimes are not specifically enumerated in the statute authorizing immunity.

Summary

The appellants refused to answer questions before a grand jury investigating a conspiracy to commit murder, claiming their answers might be self-incriminatory. The District Attorney granted them immunity, but they still refused to answer and were held in contempt. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt orders, holding that the grand jury’s investigation into conspiracy to commit murder allowed it to grant immunity, and that the immunity granted was transactional, protecting the witnesses from prosecution for any crimes revealed by their testimony. The Court reasoned that limiting immunity based on potential revelation of non-enumerated crimes would undermine the legislative intent behind immunity statutes.

Facts

A Kings County Grand Jury was impaneled to investigate a conspiracy to commit murder related to leadership of an organized crime syndicate. Appellants Menna et al., subpoenaed to testify, refused to answer questions, asserting their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The District Attorney, believing they had useful evidence about the conspiracy and the identities of co-conspirators, granted them immunity under sections 619-c and 619-d of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They persisted in their refusal.

Procedural History

The District Attorney obtained a court order directing the appellants to appear before the Grand Jury and answer questions, or face contempt charges. When the appellants refused, the Supreme Court, Kings County, held them in contempt of court in violation of section 750 of the Judiciary Law and sentenced them. The appeals were consolidated as they involved identical questions of law. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a grand jury has the power to grant immunity in an investigation centering on a conspiracy to commit murder, even though the completed crime of murder is not an offense for which the Grand Jury has statutory authority to grant immunity.
2. Whether the immunity granted by the Grand Jury was coextensive with the appellants’ privilege against self-incrimination.
3. Whether the appellants were entitled to a hearing on the relevancy of the questions asked.

Holding

1. Yes, because section 619-d(2) specifically allows for immunity in cases of conspiracy to commit murder, and the statutory purpose of granting immunity to gain evidence mandates allowing the Grand Jury to grant immunity in this situation.
2. Yes, because the applicable immunity statute provides that a person upon whom immunity is conferred “shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty… for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which… he gave answer or produced evidence.”
3. No, because only an intelligent estimate of relevancy need be made, and the questions asked of the appellants (knowing the victims or Joe Bonanno) met this standard given the scope of the Grand Jury investigation.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the Grand Jury’s investigation focused on a conspiracy to commit murder, an offense for which immunity could be granted. The fact that the investigation also touched on completed murders, for which immunity could not be directly granted, did not invalidate the grant of immunity. The Court stated: “To be sure, there is always the possibility that in any Grand Jury investigation where immunity is granted, crimes not specifically enumerated in the statute may be revealed. However, to allow this fact to repeatedly void the grant of immunity would be illogical and contrary to the intent of the Legislature.”

The Court also clarified that the immunity granted was transactional, meaning it protected the appellants from prosecution for any crime revealed by their testimony. Quoting Matter of Grand Jury [Cioffi], the Court stated that the appellants would have gotten “complete immunity as to any and all crimes to which their testimony related.” The Court expressly reaffirmed this interpretation, overruling any inconsistent statements in People v. La Bello.

Regarding the relevancy of the questions, the Court applied the “intelligent estimate of relevancy” standard from Matter of Koota v. Colombo, finding that the questions about knowing the murder victims or Joe Bonanno were relevant to the Grand Jury’s investigation into the series of killings and the conspiracy to succeed Bonanno.

The Court dismissed the argument that the appellants were targets of the investigation, citing prior precedent that a person has no right to remain silent after a grant of immunity, even if they are the target of the investigation. The Court also rejected the argument that the appellants were illegally before the Grand Jury, finding that they were afforded ample notice and were fully apprised of the nature of the Grand Jury inquiry.