In re Doe, 49 N.Y.2d 764 (1980)
An executive order directing the Attorney General to supersede a local district attorney must specify the criminal actions or proceedings with sufficient clarity, but referencing a numbered file of a pending investigation satisfies this requirement.
Summary
This case addresses the level of specificity required in an executive order authorizing the Attorney General to supersede a local district attorney’s authority in a criminal investigation. The Governor issued an executive order directing the Attorney General to manage proceedings related to a specific file in the Special State Prosecutor’s office. A witness, Jane Doe, subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury, refused to answer certain questions, arguing the executive order was too vague. The New York Court of Appeals held that referencing a specific, numbered file in the executive order satisfied the specificity requirement of Executive Law § 63(2), and the witness was required to answer the questions, assuming they were relevant to the file’s contents.
Facts
The Governor issued Executive Order No. 78, directing the Attorney General to manage proceedings before a grand jury in Albany County concerning matters related to Special Prosecutor’s File Number NY 9-41. The order superseded the Albany County District Attorney in these proceedings. Jane Doe, familiar with the facts underlying the Albany County investigation due to prior testimony, was subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury. Granted transactional immunity, she answered some questions but refused to answer others.
Procedural History
The special prosecutor sought a court order compelling Doe to answer the questions or be held in contempt. Doe cross-moved to quash the subpoena or compel disclosure of documents. Special Term ordered Doe to answer the questions. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, rejecting Doe’s argument that the executive order was too vague. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether Executive Order No. 78 satisfied the specificity requirement of Executive Law § 63(2) by referencing a numbered file of a pending investigation, thus requiring the witness to answer questions related to the subject matter of that file.
Holding
Yes, because the reference to a specific, numbered file in the executive order adequately informed the Attorney General of the scope of their authority in superseding the local District Attorney, satisfying the specificity requirement of Executive Law § 63(2).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Executive Law § 63(2) requires a degree of specificity in defining the scope of the Attorney General’s authority when superseding a local district attorney. This ensures the Attorney General’s authority is not boundless and extends only to matters set forth in the Governor’s order. Referencing a numbered file of a pending investigation adequately informs the Attorney General of the scope of their anticipated duties. The Court clarified that while the file’s contents may change, the Attorney General’s authority is limited to matters related to the file’s subject matter at the time the executive order was issued. The Court emphasized that the Attorney General’s authority is not immune from scrutiny and can be challenged in court and is under the Governor’s constant control. The Court further noted that a witness is not entitled to be fully informed of the scope of an investigation but can refuse to answer irrelevant questions, with the court available to resolve disputes about relevance. As Judge Jasen wrote: “The successful prosecution of crime would be intolerably impeded if a District Attorney could be compelled to divulge, before he is ready, the nature of an investigation by the grand jury or the name of the person or persons suspected.”