People v. Percy, 34 N.Y.2d 756 (1974)
This case clarifies the responsibilities of appellants to provide adequate appellate records, particularly when challenging the sufficiency of evidence presented to a grand jury.
Summary
In People v. Percy, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the inadequacy of the appellant’s (the People’s) supplementary appendix and brief in challenging the dismissal of certain indictments. The court found the provided materials insufficient to allow meaningful appellate review. Consequently, the Court of Appeals granted motions to compel disclosure of grand jury proceedings in part, and conditionally denied motions to dismiss the appeal. The conditions required the appellant to serve and file a new supplemental appendix containing verbatim segments of grand jury minutes and relevant exhibits supporting the challenged indictments, as well as all other grand jury testimony disclosed pursuant to a prior Appellate Division order. This case underscores the importance of a complete and accessible record for effective appellate review.
Facts
The specific underlying facts of the alleged criminal conduct are not detailed in this procedural ruling. The People sought to appeal the dismissal of several indictments related to grand larceny and official misconduct charges against the respondents (Percy, Cameron, John Strong, and Thomas Strong). The Appellate Division had previously ordered disclosure of certain grand jury testimony. The People filed a supplementary appendix and brief attempting to support the indictments’ validity.
Procedural History
The indictments against the respondents were apparently dismissed at the trial court level for insufficiency of evidence. The People appealed this dismissal. The Appellate Division ordered disclosure of specific grand jury testimony. The People then submitted a supplementary appendix and brief to the Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the dismissals. The respondents argued that the submitted materials were inadequate, hindering their ability to respond effectively. The respondents moved to compel further disclosure and to dismiss the appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the appellant’s supplementary appendix and brief provided an adequate record for the Court of Appeals to review the dismissal of the indictments.
2. Whether further disclosure of grand jury proceedings should be compelled to ensure a fair and informed appellate review.
Holding
1. No, because the provided materials were inadequate for the Court of Appeals and the respondents to properly assess the evidentiary basis for the dismissed indictments.
2. Yes, in part, because additional materials were necessary to ensure a fair and informed appellate review, subject to potential limitations based on public interest concerns.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that the appellant’s initial submissions were deficient, stating, “Because of the inadequacy of the supplementary appendix thus far served and filed, and the failure of the appellant’s brief to direct the Court of Appeals, let alone defendant’s counsel, to the evidentiary basis for certain indictments dismissed for insufficiency, the following extraordinary procedures are indicated…”
The court emphasized the appellant’s responsibility to provide a clear and complete record. The failure to adequately reference and include relevant portions of the grand jury minutes and exhibits hampered the court’s ability to evaluate the merits of the appeal and prejudiced the respondents’ ability to respond effectively.
To remedy this, the court ordered the appellant to serve and file a new supplemental appendix that included (1) verbatim segments of the grand jury minutes and exhibits believed sufficient to support the challenged indictments and (2) all other grand jury testimony disclosed pursuant to the prior Appellate Division order, with appropriate page references to the appellant’s brief.
Recognizing potential public interest concerns related to the disclosure of grand jury proceedings, the court allowed the People to apply for a protective order to withhold evidence if they believed disclosure would be detrimental, provided they submitted reasons for nondisclosure and specific references to the relevant materials. This shows a balancing act between the need for transparency in the appellate process and the protection of sensitive information.
The court’s decision serves as a reminder that an appellant bears the burden of presenting a sufficient record to support their claims on appeal. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the appeal or, as in this case, an order compelling the appellant to provide additional information.