People v. Valles, 62 N.Y.2d 36 (1984)
A prosecutor must instruct a grand jury on exculpatory defenses that, if believed, would eliminate criminal liability, but not on mitigating defenses that would merely reduce the severity of the charge.
Summary
Defendant, indicted for second-degree murder, argued the grand jury proceedings were defective because the prosecutor failed to instruct them on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. The New York Court of Appeals held that while prosecutors must instruct grand juries on exculpatory defenses (those resulting in no criminal liability), they are not required to instruct on mitigating defenses (those reducing the gravity of the offense). The court reasoned that grand juries should consider defenses that could prevent unwarranted prosecutions, but mitigating factors are better resolved by a petit jury after a full trial.
Facts
The defendant was arrested and charged with fatally shooting a man. He testified before the grand jury, claiming he acted to protect his stepdaughter from an attack. The prosecutor submitted the charge of second-degree murder and the defense of justification to the grand jury. The defendant was subsequently indicted for second-degree murder.
Procedural History
The defendant challenged the indictment, arguing the grand jury proceedings were defective. The lower courts dismissed the murder count of the indictment. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a prosecutor is required to instruct a grand jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance when that defense is suggested by the evidence presented.
Holding
No, because the defense of extreme emotional disturbance is a mitigating defense, not an exculpatory one. Thus, the District Attorney was not required to present it to the Grand Jury.
Court’s Reasoning
The court distinguished between exculpatory and mitigating defenses. Exculpatory defenses, if believed, result in a finding of no criminal liability, preventing unwarranted prosecution. Mitigating defenses, on the other hand, only reduce the gravity of the offense and do not prevent criminal prosecution altogether. The court stated, “The primary function of the Grand Jury in our system is to investigate crimes and determine whether sufficient evidence exists to accuse a citizen of a crime and subject him or her to criminal prosecution.” Instructing grand juries on exculpatory defenses aligns with this function by preventing unfounded accusations. The court emphasized that the District Attorney is free to seek an indictment for the highest crime the evidence supports. The court concluded: “It is not necessary that, having presented a prima facie case and those complete defenses suggested by the evidence, the District Attorney go further and present defenses in mitigation, which ordinarily will involve matters for resolution by the petit jury upon a full record.” Therefore, the failure to instruct the grand jury on the mitigating defense of extreme emotional disturbance was not a defect in the proceedings.