People v. Steuding, 6 N.Y.2d 556 (1959)

A defendant’s voluntary decision to testify before a grand jury without notifying counsel, while potentially unwise, does not automatically constitute reversible error unless prejudice is demonstrated.

Summary

The defendant, after being arraigned and assigned counsel, requested to testify before the grand jury without his counsel’s knowledge. He testified under waiver of immunity and was subsequently indicted. At trial, his grand jury testimony, which was substantially similar to his trial testimony, was used to impeach him on a minor point. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the District Attorney should have notified the defendant’s counsel about the grand jury appearance, the defendant’s voluntary action and the lack of demonstrated prejudice meant the conviction should stand. The court emphasized that the Grand Jury serves an investigatory, not prosecutorial, function.

Facts

After his arraignment and assignment of counsel, Steuding sent a note to the grand jury asking to testify and “tell his story.”
His counsel was not informed of this request or the subsequent testimony.
Steuding testified before the grand jury, waiving immunity.
He provided testimony denying his guilt.
Steuding was later indicted.
At trial, his testimony mirrored what he had said before the grand jury.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the case, considering the defendant’s claim that his grand jury testimony, taken without his counsel’s knowledge, prejudiced his trial.

Issue(s)

Whether a conviction should be reversed when a defendant testifies before a grand jury without informing their counsel, and the prosecutor fails to notify defense counsel of the defendant’s intention to appear.
Whether the use of the defendant’s grand jury testimony at trial, to impeach him on a minor inconsistency, constitutes prejudicial error requiring reversal.

Holding

No, because the defendant acted voluntarily, and the grand jury is an investigatory body. The prosecutor’s failure to notify defense counsel, though a misstep, did not automatically invalidate the conviction.
No, because the inconsistency was trivial and did not prejudice the defendant’s case before the jury.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the defendant had a personal right under Section 250(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appear before the grand jury. While counsel could have advised him, the defendant took the initiative. Quoting People v. Ianniello, the court noted that the grand jury is part of the investigatory process, not the prosecution. The court emphasized that the People did not induce Steuding’s appearance. Therefore, this situation wasn’t considered an improper interference by the prosecutor with the attorney-client relationship.
The Court emphasized that a conviction should not be reversed unless prejudice resulted. The court found that the only use of the grand jury testimony during trial was a question about a “trivial difference” regarding the timeline of the defendant’s acquaintance with the deceased. The court concluded, “This could have had no prejudicial effect.”
The court distinguished this scenario from one where the prosecutor actively interferes with the attorney-client relationship. Here, the defendant initiated the contact with the grand jury, minimizing the prosecutorial misconduct. The key factor was the lack of demonstrated prejudice to the defendant’s case.