Babayan v. People, 72 N.Y.2d 561 (1988)

A trial court in a criminal case exceeds its authorized powers when it dismisses an indictment on the merits due to the prosecution’s inability to proceed without presenting evidence, as such action is not authorized by statute or inherent judicial power.

Summary

This case concerns the extent of a trial court’s authority to dismiss a criminal case when the prosecution is unable to proceed. The trial court dismissed an indictment on the merits after the prosecution was unable to locate the complaining witness and requested an adjournment, which the court denied. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court exceeded its power by entering a trial order of dismissal without any evidence presented, and that prohibition was the appropriate remedy. The court emphasized that dismissal powers are statutory and must be exercised within the bounds defined by the legislature.

Facts

Richard Babayan was indicted on charges of grand larceny and criminal possession of a forged instrument stemming from a check that was refused payment. The complaining witness, Mahmoud Shahhosseini, was in Iran. The People requested an adjournment to secure his presence. The trial court, skeptical of the People’s ability to produce the witness, and over the People’s objection, dismissed the indictment after the People said they were unable to proceed.

Procedural History

The People commenced an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division, seeking to prohibit the enforcement of the trial court’s order. The Appellate Division found prohibition appropriate but upheld the trial court’s actions, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the adjournment. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial court has the power to dismiss a criminal indictment on the merits, based on the prosecution’s inability to proceed due to the absence of a complaining witness, when no evidence has been presented.

Holding

No, because the trial court’s dismissal was not authorized by statute or inherent judicial power; thus, the dismissal was an act in excess of the court’s jurisdiction, warranting prohibition.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals analyzed the issue through the lens of prohibition, examining whether the trial court acted in excess of its authorized powers. The Court emphasized that while trial courts have the power to dismiss indictments, this power is not unlimited and must be exercised within statutory confines. CPL 290.10(1)(a) allows for dismissal only upon the defendant’s motion at the conclusion of the People’s case or all evidence, which was not the situation here. The court noted the legislature’s intent to limit the appealability of trial orders of dismissal to instances where double jeopardy does not bar further review, underscoring the absence of legislative intent to permit non-appealable dismissals before a trial commences.

Further, the court rejected the argument that the dismissal could be upheld as a permissible pretrial dismissal under CPL 210.20 because the order stated it was a dismissal on the merits and the court did not follow the procedures (consideration of factors in CPL 210.40) for a dismissal in the interest of justice. The court also reiterated the principle from People v. Douglass, 60 N.Y.2d 194, that courts lack inherent power to dismiss criminal proceedings for failure to proceed. The Court distinguished the powers of courts in civil and criminal proceedings, noting the separation of powers concerns implicated when a court interferes with a District Attorney’s prosecutorial discretion. The Court pointed out that the trial court could have placed the case on a reserve calendar or considered contempt powers. The Court stated, “Dismissal in the interest of justice may well be appropriate for just such abuses; indeed, ‘the attitude of the complainant’ is specifically identified among the factors to be considered on a motion to dismiss in furtherance of justice (CPL 210.40 [1] [i]).” Because the trial court did not follow CPL 210.40 when dismissing the case, the Court found the dismissal was improper.