86 N.Y.2d 248 (1995)
A grand jury indictment requires legally sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for each element of the charged offense, but the reviewing court is limited to ascertaining the “legal sufficiency” of the evidence, without weighing the proof or examining its adequacy.
Summary
Michael Jensen was indicted on charges including petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property, resisting arrest, and second-degree assault after an incident involving the theft of a dorm chair. He was stopped by campus police while carrying a lounge chair, admitted to taking it as a prank, and then resisted arrest, injuring an officer. The County Court dismissed the indictment, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding the Grand Jury evidence was sufficient to indict on all counts. The court reasoned that larcenous intent could be inferred, the arrest was based on probable cause, and the assault occurred while preventing a lawful duty.
Facts
At 3:13 A.M. on November 6, 1992, Cornell University Public Safety Officers observed Michael Jensen carrying a dormitory lounge chair on his head. Jensen admitted to taking the chair from a residence hall as a prank. He refused to identify himself or confirm if he was a student. After repeated requests for identification, Jensen eventually reached for his pocket, but an officer attempted to retrieve the ID instead. Jensen slapped the officer’s hand away and fled. During the pursuit, Officer Zoner was injured when Jensen dragged her down a gorge slope as he attempted to escape.
Procedural History
Jensen was indicted on charges of petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property, resisting arrest, and second-degree assault. The County Court granted Jensen’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The Appellate Division reversed, reinstating all charges. A Justice of the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to support the indictment on charges of petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property, resisting arrest, and second-degree assault.
Holding
Yes, because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally sufficient for the Grand Jury to infer larcenous intent, probable cause for arrest, and intent to prevent a lawful duty, causing physical injury.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals applied the standard that a Grand Jury indictment requires legally sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, including all elements of the crime and reasonable cause to believe the accused committed the offense. The court stated, “[L]egally sufficient means prima facie, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court emphasized its review is limited to ascertaining legal sufficiency, without weighing the proof. The court found that the Grand Jury could rationally infer larcenous intent from Jensen’s actions of carrying the chair at 3:13 A.M., his admission that the chair did not belong to him, and his evasive behavior. The court reasoned that there was probable cause to arrest Jensen for larceny, thus justifying the charge of resisting arrest. Finally, there was legally sufficient evidence that Jensen intended to prevent Officer Zoner from performing a lawful duty, causing her physical injury, thus supporting the charge of second-degree assault. The dissent argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of larceny or the lawfulness of the arrest, and the officer’s injury stemmed from the officer’s own misconduct. The dissent noted, “[T]here must still be a showing that the underlying police conduct was lawful.”