People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589 (1978)

A defendant waives the right to challenge the factual sufficiency of an indictment if the objection is not timely raised, provided the indictment effectively charges a crime and the defendant isn’t deprived of the right to be informed of the charges.

Summary

Defendants Iannone and Corozzo appealed their convictions for criminal usury, arguing the indictments against them were insufficient for failing to state facts constituting a crime. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants waived their right to challenge the indictments’ factual sufficiency because they failed to raise timely objections. The court clarified that while indictment by a grand jury is a fundamental right, defects in factual allegations, unlike the failure to charge all elements of a crime, can be waived if not promptly challenged.

Facts

Iannone was indicted for conspiracy and criminal usury, pleading guilty to one count of criminal usury. Corozzo was indicted for conspiracy, criminal usury, and grand larceny, and was convicted of criminal usury after a jury trial. Both indictments charged that the defendants knowingly charged, took, and received money as interest on a loan at a rate exceeding 25% per annum, without legal authorization. Iannone challenged the indictment’s sufficiency for the first time at sentencing, and Corozzo raised the issue for the first time on appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Procedural History

Iannone pleaded guilty to one count of criminal usury; his motion to dismiss the indictment at sentencing was denied, and the Appellate Division affirmed his conviction. Corozzo was convicted of criminal usury after a jury trial, and the Appellate Division affirmed his conviction. Both defendants appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a defendant waives the right to challenge the factual sufficiency of an indictment by failing to raise a timely objection in the trial court.
2. Whether an insufficiency in the factual allegations of an indictment constitutes a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived.

Holding

1. Yes, because a defendant must timely object to preserve the issue for appellate review.
2. No, because an indictment is only jurisdictionally defective if it fails to charge every material element of the crime, not merely because of insufficient factual allegations.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized the evolution of indictment requirements, noting a shift from strict formalism to a more practical approach focused on providing defendants with adequate notice of the charges. While indictment by a Grand Jury is a fundamental right, the specific contents of the indictment are subject to waiver. The court stated that “the basic essential function of an indictment qua document is simply to notify the defendant of the crime of which he stands indicted.” The court noted that CPL 200.50 requires an indictment to contain a “plain and concise factual statement… with sufficient precision as to clearly apprise the defendant… of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation”.

The Court distinguished between defects that are jurisdictional and those that are not. “In essence, an indictment is jurisdictionally defective only if it does not effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a particular crime…or if it fails to allege that a defendant committed acts constituting every material element of the crime charged.” It held that “[i]nsufficiency in the factual allegations alone, as opposed to a failure to allege every material element of the crime, does not constitute a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect”.

The court cautioned that an overzealous prosecutor shouldn’t deprive a defendant of the right to be informed of the charges, especially where the indictment provides little information. In such cases, the court must ensure the defendant’s rights to a bill of particulars and effective discovery are protected. Here, the defendants didn’t claim they were unaware of the charges or prejudiced, only that the indictments were insufficient. Because the indictments properly charged criminal usury and the defendants failed to timely object, they waived their right to challenge the factual sufficiency on appeal.