People v. Carter, 77 N.Y.2d 95 (1991)
An indictment is not invalid simply because the assistant district attorney presenting the case to the grand jury was not admitted to the bar, so long as that person was appointed by an authority with subject matter jurisdiction.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that an indictment was valid even though the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) who presented the case to the grand jury was not a licensed attorney. The court reasoned that as long as the ADA was appointed by a prosecutor with subject matter jurisdiction and had taken the oath of office, the indictment was valid. The court emphasized that neither the constitution nor statute mandates an ADA be a lawyer. The dissent argued that allowing a non-lawyer to present a case to a grand jury undermines the integrity of the legal process.
Facts
Daniel Penofsky, posing as an Assistant District Attorney, presented evidence to a grand jury that led to the indictment of the defendant, Carter. Penofsky was never admitted to the bar and had fraudulently represented himself as an attorney for 16 years. After his deception was discovered, the defendant challenged the validity of the indictment.
Procedural History
The trial court upheld the indictment. The defendant appealed, arguing that the indictment was invalid because the prosecutor was not a licensed attorney. The appellate division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the appellate division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether an indictment is invalid because the Assistant District Attorney presenting the case to the grand jury was not a licensed attorney.
Holding
No, because the Assistant District Attorney was appointed by an authority with subject matter jurisdiction, had the permission of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor and had taken the oath of office; therefore, the indictment was valid.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that neither the Constitution nor any statute requires a District Attorney or an Assistant District Attorney to be an admitted lawyer. The critical factor is whether the person presenting the case had the authority to do so. Here, Penofsky was appointed by the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, who had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The court distinguished this situation from cases where the prosecutor lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that Penofsky’s lack of a law license did not negate the Special Narcotics Prosecutor’s grant of authority. The court emphasized that Penofsky “duly executed the oath of office” and was “regularly assigned as an Assistant District Attorney.” The court also noted that concerns about Penofsky’s competence were mitigated by the fact that he worked within an office with supervisory structures. The dissent argued that allowing an unadmitted layperson to practice law and to present a criminal case to a grand jury compromises the integrity of the Grand Jury system and violates Judiciary Law provisions concerning the practice of law.