New York Law Review

Tag: CPL 210.30

  • People v. Marin, 187 A.D.2d 410 (1992): People Must Produce Grand Jury Minutes Within a Reasonable Time After Defendant’s Motion

    187 A.D.2d 410 (1992)

    When the People do not object to a defendant’s motion for inspection of Grand Jury minutes, they must produce the minutes within a reasonable time from the date the motion is made; failure to do so results in that time being charged to the prosecution for speedy trial purposes.

    Summary

    Marin was indicted for assault. He moved to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and dismiss the indictment. The People delayed responding to the motion for 64 days and did not provide the minutes. Marin then moved to dismiss based on CPL 30.30 (speedy trial). The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding the delay in providing the minutes violated Marin’s speedy trial rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that when the People do not object to inspection, they must produce the minutes within a reasonable time after the motion, and that a delay of 36 days was unreasonable in this case.

    Facts

    Defendant allegedly struck James Jones with a garbage can during a street fight, causing serious injuries. Defendant was arrested and charged with assault and criminal possession of a weapon.
    Defendant was indicted on November 13, 1990, and arraigned on November 27, 1990, at which time the People declared readiness for trial.
    On January 23, 1991, Defendant filed an omnibus motion seeking, among other things, inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.30.
    The People did not respond to the omnibus motion until March 28, 1991, 64 days after the request, and did not provide the Grand Jury minutes.

    Procedural History

    Defendant filed an omnibus motion on January 23, 1991, seeking inspection of Grand Jury minutes and dismissal of the indictment.
    On April 18, 1991, Defendant moved to dismiss under CPL 30.30.
    On May 2, 1991, Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree.
    On May 29, 1991, the trial court denied Defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion.
    The Appellate Division reversed the conviction.
    The Court of Appeals granted the People leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the People may delay producing Grand Jury minutes in response to a defendant’s CPL 210.30 motion until the court specifically orders them to do so, or whether they have an obligation to produce the minutes within a reasonable time of the motion.

    Holding

    No, the People must produce the Grand Jury minutes within a reasonable time of the defendant’s CPL 210.30 motion because CPL 210.30(3) places the burden on the People to show good cause why the motion should not be granted; the People’s inaction resulted in a delay in the court’s disposition of the motion.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that CPL 30.30 addresses delays caused by prosecutorial inaction. The People argued that they weren’t obligated to produce the minutes until the court ruled on the motion to inspect. The Court rejected this, stating that since the People did not oppose the motion to inspect, they should have produced the minutes within a reasonable time. The Court stated that “where the People make no objection to the branch of the CPL 210.30 motion seeking inspection of the Grand Jury minutes, the People’s obligation to produce the Grand Jury minutes within a reasonable time begins to run from the date the defendant’s CPL 210.30 motion (to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and to dismiss the indictment) is made.” The Court cited People v. McKenna, where a similar delay was charged to the People. The court also noted that CPL 210.30 was amended to eliminate the need for a threshold showing by the defendant, making a favorable ruling on the motion to inspect almost automatic unless the prosecution shows good cause for denial. The court considered the 36-day limit imposed by the Appellate Division to be reasonable.

  • Matter of District Attorney of Sullivan County, 58 N.Y.2d 183 (1983): Limits on Defendant Access to Grand Jury Minutes

    Matter of District Attorney of Sullivan County, 58 N.Y.2d 183 (1983)

    CPL 210.30 does not grant trial judges the authority to permit defendants or their attorneys to inspect Grand Jury minutes; instead, the court itself conducts an in-camera review to determine the legal sufficiency of the evidence.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a trial court can order the disclosure of Grand Jury minutes to the defendant when the defendant moves to dismiss an indictment based on insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals held that CPL 210.30 mandates an in-camera inspection by the court, not direct disclosure to the defendant. The court emphasized the importance of Grand Jury secrecy and the legislature’s intent to streamline procedures. The decision clarifies that while defendants have a right to challenge the sufficiency of evidence, the mechanism for doing so involves judicial review of the Grand Jury minutes, not adversarial argument based on defendant access to the minutes.

    Facts

    Michael Kazmarick was indicted for five counts of second-degree murder after a fire in Monticello. Kazmarick’s counsel moved to dismiss the indictment, alleging insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury. To prepare a memorandum of law, defense counsel requested a transcript of the Grand Jury proceedings. The Sullivan County Judge ordered the District Attorney to provide the transcript to the defense.

    Procedural History

    The Sullivan County Court ordered the District Attorney to furnish the Grand Jury transcript to the defense. The District Attorney sought reargument, which was denied. The District Attorney then initiated an Article 78 proceeding to prohibit the release of the minutes. The Appellate Division granted the petition, preventing the County Court from enforcing its order. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a trial judge has the authority, under CPL 210.30, to order the disclosure of Grand Jury minutes to a defendant or their attorney when the defendant moves to dismiss an indictment based on the insufficiency of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury.

    Holding

    No, because CPL 210.30 requires the court itself to examine the Grand Jury minutes in-camera to determine the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and does not authorize the release of those minutes to the defendant or their attorney.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals found that CPL 210.30 clearly outlines the procedure for motions to inspect Grand Jury minutes and dismiss indictments. The statute explicitly states that a motion to inspect Grand Jury minutes is a request for the court to examine the minutes to determine if the evidence was legally sufficient. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to create a uniform procedure and to eliminate the inconsistencies that existed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Law. The court quoted Judge Richard Denzer, a draftsman of the legislation, stating that the CPL section does not authorize the minutes being given to the defendant for adversarial argument. The court acknowledged the defendant’s constitutional right to challenge an indictment based on inadequate evidence, referencing People ex rel. Hirschberg v Supreme Ct., but clarified that CPL 210.30 provides the mechanism for that challenge, which is an in-camera review by the court. The court stated that even if a defendant fails to demonstrate reasonable cause to believe the evidence was insufficient, CPL 210.30 (subd 4) authorizes the court to conduct an in-camera inspection. The court noted that “[i]f there is any doubt as to the adequacy of the evidence in a given case, the court should not hesitate to conduct an examination of the minutes under this provision”. Prohibition was deemed a proper remedy because the threatened harm was an unauthorized disclosure of Grand Jury proceedings.