People v. Swingle, 48 N.Y.2d 947 (1979)

A challenge to the jury panel must be made in writing with specific objections, and discovery of exculpatory evidence is only required when the material is in the prosecutor’s possession and necessary for the defense.

Summary

Defendant Swingle was convicted of grand larceny for misusing funds from Project AWARE. The Court of Appeals addressed two issues: whether Swingle’s challenge to the jury panel was properly preserved and whether the denial of her discovery motion for interoffice memoranda from the Department of Social Services was an error. The Court held that the challenge to the jury panel was not preserved because it was not in writing with specific objections, and the discovery motion was properly denied because the documents were not exculpatory and not in the District Attorney’s possession. The Court modified the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the grand larceny conviction and remitting the case for review of the facts.

Facts

Defendant Swingle was convicted of grand larceny in the second degree for misusing funds she received on behalf of Project AWARE. The People argued that Swingle was legally obligated to disburse these funds to others but instead used them for her own purposes. Swingle challenged the jury panel and sought discovery of interoffice memoranda from the Department of Social Services, arguing that these documents would demonstrate she was authorized to receive the funds. The trial court denied both requests.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted Swingle of grand larceny in the second degree and a misdemeanor under section 145 of the Social Services Law. The Appellate Division reversed and vacated both convictions. Swingle appealed to the Court of Appeals, challenging the denial of her jury panel challenge and discovery motion. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, reversing the vacatur of the grand larceny conviction and remitting for review of the facts while affirming the reversal of the misdemeanor conviction.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s challenge to the jury panel was properly preserved for review.
2. Whether the denial of the defendant’s discovery motion for interoffice memoranda of the Department of Social Services was an error.

Holding

1. No, because the challenge was not made in writing as required by CPL 270.10(subd 2), and no adequate specification of the objections was offered in advance of jury selection.
2. No, because the documents sought were not exculpatory and were not shown to be in the possession or control of the District Attorney.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the defendant’s challenge to the jury panel was not preserved for review because it failed to comply with CPL 270.10(subd 2), which requires a motion in writing. Furthermore, the defendant did not provide sufficient notice of the grounds for her objections prior to jury selection, preventing the court and the People from adequately addressing them. Citing People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446, 455, the court emphasized the importance of providing specific objections in advance of jury selection.

Regarding the discovery motion, the Court found no error in its denial. The Court highlighted that the documents sought were interoffice memoranda of the Department of Social Services and, at most, would have shown that Swingle received funds for her activities on behalf of Project AWARE. The court pointed out that there was no dispute that Swingle received the funds; the crucial issue was whether she was legally obligated to disburse them to others and whether she did so. The Court stated that Swingle offered little evidence of an obligation to disburse the funds, while the People’s evidence showed substantial use of Project AWARE moneys by Swingle for her own purposes. Thus, the documents were not considered exculpatory material necessary for the preparation of the defense. Furthermore, the Court noted that CPL 240.20(subd 3) did not apply because it was not shown that the documents were in the possession or control of the District Attorney.

The Court emphasized that the defendant failed to demonstrate how the documents would have exonerated her from the charge of grand larceny, given the evidence presented by the People regarding her use of the funds. Therefore, the denial of the discovery motion was neither an error of law nor an abuse of discretion.