Matter of Blake v. Hogan, 34 N.Y.2d 243 (1974)
Prohibition is not the proper procedural vehicle for reviewing an alleged defect in the Grand Jury selection process, unless the court exceeded its jurisdictional powers.
Summary
This case addresses whether an Article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition is the appropriate method to challenge defects in the Grand Jury selection process. The Court of Appeals held that prohibition is not the proper vehicle unless the court lacked the power to proceed, distinguishing between a challenge to the power to empanel a Grand Jury and a challenge to the selection process itself. The Court emphasized that defects in the selection process, even those of constitutional dimension, can be waived and do not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
Facts
The specific facts regarding the alleged defect in the Grand Jury selection process are not detailed in the opinion, as the Court did not reach the merits of the claim. However, the petitioner sought to challenge the legality of the Grand Jury based on how it was selected.
Procedural History
The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition to challenge the Grand Jury selection. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, but solely on the procedural ground that prohibition was not the proper vehicle for the challenge.
Issue(s)
Whether an Article 78 proceeding, in the nature of prohibition, is the proper method for reviewing an alleged defect in the Grand Jury selection process.
Holding
No, because a determination in a criminal case is not reviewable in an Article 78 proceeding unless the court exceeded its jurisdictional powers. The power to proceed on the indictment existed; therefore, prohibition does not lie.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that prohibition is only appropriate when the court lacks the jurisdictional power to make a determination. It distinguished between a challenge to the court’s power to empanel a Grand Jury (e.g., exceeding its term, as in Matter of Seidenberg v. County Ct. of County of Rockland) and a challenge to the selection process of a properly ordered Grand Jury. The Court stated, “[A] claim that a Grand Jury was illegally impaneled because the court lacked the power to extend its term…must be distinguished from a claim that a Grand Jury, properly ordered, was illegally selected.”
The Court emphasized that objections to the selection process can be waived, even if the alleged defect rises to constitutional dimensions (citing Davis v. United States). Therefore, the court had the power to proceed on the indictment, and prohibition was not the appropriate remedy. The Court explicitly declined to reach the merits of the underlying claim regarding the Grand Jury selection process, stating, “In view of this we need not, and do not, reach the merits.”