People v. Evans, 79 N.Y.2d 407 (1992)
A defendant who provides timely notice of intent to testify before a grand jury has the right to testify before the grand jury votes on the indictment, unless the failure to appear is attributable to the defendant.
Summary
This case addresses the interplay between CPL 190.50(5) and 180.80, concerning a defendant’s right to testify before a grand jury and the timeframe for indictment before a defendant’s release. The defendants served written notices of their intent to testify before the grand jury. However, the prosecutor presented charges and obtained indictments to avoid CPL 180.80 consequences, without allowing the defendants to testify beforehand. The Court of Appeals held that defendants who provide timely notice of intent to testify have a right to testify before the grand jury votes on the indictment.
Facts
Three defendants, Oquendo, Evans, and Davis, were arrested and charged with various felonies. At their arraignments, the People served notice that criminal charges would be presented to a Grand Jury, and the defendants responded with written notices of their intent to testify. The defendants were held in pretrial detention. On the scheduled dates for presentment, Evans and Oquendo were not produced until after the indictments were voted. Davis was produced but returned to detention before being given the opportunity to testify due to security concerns. The prosecutor obtained indictments to avoid the consequences of CPL 180.80.
Procedural History
The defendants were indicted, and their attorneys moved to dismiss, arguing they were denied the opportunity to appear before the Grand Jury. The Supreme Court, Queens County, dismissed each indictment. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the right to testify must include the right to testify before the Grand Jury has voted. The Court of Appeals granted leave and affirmed the Appellate Division’s orders.
Issue(s)
Whether defendants were deprived of their statutory right to appear and testify before a Grand Jury under CPL 190.50(5) when the prosecutor presented charges to the Grand Jury to avoid the consequences of CPL 180.80, despite the defendants’ timely requests to testify.
Holding
Yes, because individuals who give timely notice reasonably prior to the prosecution’s presentment of evidence and prior to the Grand Jury vote on an indictment are entitled to testify before the vote.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that CPL 190.50(5) expands an accused’s rights related to Grand Jury proceedings. While the statute establishes the timing requirement for the defendant’s notice of intent to appear (