People v. Coppa, 45 N.Y.2d 244 (1978)

When a trial court dismisses an indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20, citing the prosecutor’s failure to state a prima facie case in their opening statement, the People have the right to appeal that dismissal to an intermediate appellate court, regardless of whether the trial court’s reliance on the statute was ultimately correct.

Summary

Defendant was indicted for grand larceny. After jury selection and opening statements, the defense moved to dismiss, arguing the prosecution failed to present a prima facie case in its opening. The trial court, citing CPL 210.20, dismissed the indictment but ensured the defendant waived double jeopardy protections. The Appellate Division dismissed the People’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, deeming CPL 210.20 inapplicable. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the explicit citation of CPL 210.20 in the dismissal order conferred appellate jurisdiction, and whether the reliance on that statute was proper should be considered on the merits of the appeal, not as a bar to it.

Facts

1. A grand jury indicted the defendant on two counts of grand larceny.
2. After the jury was selected and sworn, the prosecutor presented an opening statement.
3. Defense counsel moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming the prosecutor failed to state a prima facie case in the opening statement.
4. The trial court reserved decision, then later indicated its intent to dismiss the indictment under sections preserving the People’s right to appeal.
5. The defendant stipulated to waive double jeopardy protections should the dismissal be reversed on appeal.
6. The court dismissed the indictment, citing the prosecutor’s failure to state a prima facie case in the opening address and CPL 210.20(1)(h) and (i).

Procedural History

1. The trial court dismissed the indictment after the prosecutor’s opening statement.
2. The People appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division.
3. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding CPL 210.20 inapplicable.
4. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Appellate Division has jurisdiction to hear the People’s appeal of a trial court order dismissing an indictment when the order explicitly cites CPL 210.20 as the basis for dismissal, even if the Appellate Division believes the statute was misapplied.

Holding

1. Yes, because CPL 450.20(1) allows the People to appeal as a matter of right to an intermediate appellate court from an order dismissing an indictment entered pursuant to section 210.20. The explicit reference to CPL 210.20 in the trial court’s order is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Appellate Division.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Legislature intended to grant the People the right to appeal dismissals of indictments under CPL 210.20, regardless of whether the trial court’s application of the statute was ultimately correct. The court stated, “Obviously the Legislature did not intend to grant the People the right to appeal only in those cases where the dismissal was proper or arguably proper. Nor did the Legislature intend that the People should be denied appellate relief when the dismissal of the indictment was unauthorized by the statute relied upon.” The propriety of the trial court’s reliance on CPL 210.20 should be considered on the merits of the appeal, not as a jurisdictional bar. While appellate courts may “look through” an order in certain cases (e.g., to ensure that restrictions on interlocutory appeals are not breached), an order granting a motion to dismiss an indictment does not present such a jurisdictional impediment because it finally determines the People’s case unless reversed on appeal.