New York Law Review

Tag: Resubmission of Charges

  • Cantwell v. Ryan, 2 N.Y.3d 620 (2004): Limits on Court Authority to Order Resubmission of Charges to a Grand Jury

    Cantwell v. Ryan, 2 N.Y.3d 620 (2004)

    A court lacks the authority to order a prosecutor to submit charges to a grand jury that are different from those previously considered and dismissed by a prior grand jury.

    Summary

    This case addresses the scope of a court’s authority to order the resubmission of charges to a grand jury after the initial grand jury declined to indict on certain charges. Following a grand jury’s refusal to indict on murder charges, a County Court Judge, concerned that lesser charges were not considered, ordered the prosecutor to present the case to a second grand jury and instruct it to consider manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges. The Appellate Division prohibited the enforcement of the judge’s orders, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the judge exceeded his authority under CPL 190.75(3), which only permits the court to authorize resubmission of the *same* charge previously dismissed, not different or lesser charges.

    Facts

    After a grand jury returned a “no true bill” on intentional and depraved indifference murder charges against Lawrence Crouthers, a grand juror expressed concern that lesser charges should be considered.

    The County Court Judge arranged for the juror to appear in court, directing the prosecutor to be present with the grand jury’s foreperson and ordering the prosecutor to produce the grand jury minutes.

    The prosecutor stated he had no intention of re-presenting the matter.

    The court concluded that the evidence supported manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide charges.

    The court ordered the prosecutor to present the case to another grand jury and to instruct it to consider those lesser charges.

    Procedural History

    The County Court Judge issued an order directing the prosecutor to present lesser charges to a second grand jury.

    After the prosecutor sought to reargue, the court issued a second order clarifying that the prosecutor could choose which lesser crimes to submit.

    The Appellate Division granted the District Attorney’s petition prohibiting the County Judge from enforcing its orders.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a County Court Judge has the authority under CPL 190.75(3) to order a prosecutor to submit charges to a grand jury that are different from those previously considered and dismissed by a prior grand jury?

    Holding

    No, because CPL 190.75(3) only allows a court to authorize resubmission of the *same* charge that the grand jury had previously considered and dismissed, not other or additional (i.e., lesser) charges.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals focused on the plain language of CPL 190.75(3), which states that a charge dismissed by a grand jury “may be resubmitted to a grand jury only if the court ‘in its discretion authorizes or directs the people to resubmit *such charge* to the same or another grand jury’ (emphasis supplied).”

    The court reasoned that the County Court Judge’s order to submit *different* charges (specifically, lesser included offenses) exceeded the scope of authority granted by the statute. Since the judge did not direct the District Attorney to resubmit the *same* charge that the grand jury had previously considered and dismissed, the order was invalid.

    The Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning of the Appellate Division, emphasizing a strict interpretation of the statutory language.

    The decision highlights the limits on judicial intervention in the prosecutorial process, emphasizing that the authority to direct grand jury proceedings is primarily vested in the District Attorney, subject only to the specific exceptions outlined in the Criminal Procedure Law.

  • People v. Cade, 74 N.Y.2d 410 (1989): Resubmission of Charges to Grand Jury After True Bill

    People v. Cade, 74 N.Y.2d 410 (1989)

    A prosecutor may resubmit charges to the same Grand Jury after a true bill has been voted, to introduce additional evidence, without obtaining court authorization, as long as the action does not impair the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings or risk prejudice to the defendant.

    Summary

    The Grand Jury initially voted a true bill charging the defendant with murder and weapons possession, but then vacated the vote at the prosecutor’s request to hear additional evidence. After hearing the additional evidence, the Grand Jury voted a second true bill, and the defendant was indicted. The trial court dismissed the indictment, arguing that the second submission required court authorization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that court authorization is not required for resubmission to the same Grand Jury after a true bill has been voted, as long as the proceedings’ integrity is maintained and the defendant is not prejudiced. The purpose of requiring court authorization is to prevent prosecutorial abuse when a Grand Jury has rejected the evidence.

    Facts

    On April 1 and 3, 1987, a Grand Jury heard evidence regarding the murder of Darrell Richardson and the defendant’s alleged involvement.
    On April 3, the Grand Jury voted a true bill, charging the defendant with second-degree murder and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.
    However, the indictment was not immediately filed.
    On April 9, 1987, at the prosecutor’s request, the Grand Jury vacated its earlier vote to consider new testimony.
    The new testimony concerned the shotgun used in the murder, establishing that the defendant had exclusive possession of it on the day of the murder.
    After hearing this additional evidence, the Grand Jury voted a second true bill containing the same two counts.

    Procedural History

    The trial court dismissed the indictment, with leave to the District Attorney to resubmit the charges to another Grand Jury.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
    The People were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a prosecutor needs court authorization to resubmit charges to the same Grand Jury after the Grand Jury has already voted a true bill, but before the indictment is filed, in order to present additional evidence.

    Holding

    No, because court authorization is not required for resubmission to the same Grand Jury after a true bill has been voted, as long as the action does not impair the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings or risk prejudice to the defendant.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 190.75 (1) and (3) apply only to prior “dismissals” and require judicial permission to resubmit charges when the first Grand Jury hearing the evidence has rejected it as insufficient. The court emphasized that nothing in the Criminal Procedure Law was intended to change the existing rule that a superseding indictment may be obtained without court authorization. The court noted, “If the Grand Jury has voted favorably on the charges, the District Attorney is at liberty to resubmit the matter to the same Grand Jury…without court approval and obtain a superseding indictment.” The court emphasized that the key is whether the action impairs the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings or risks prejudice to the defendant under CPL 210.35 (5). In this case, neither was at risk, so the indictment against the defendant could stand.

    The court distinguished its prior holding in People v. Wilkins, where it held that when the prosecutor unilaterally withdrew a case from the grand jurors before they had an opportunity to vote, he could not resubmit the matter without court authorization. In this case, the Grand Jury *did* vote to indict; thus, the District Attorney had no need to “forum shop” for a more compliant Grand Jury.

    The court rejected the argument that the failure to file the April 3 indictment immediately was a jurisdictional defect, stating that the provision is only directory, and its requirements were met when the indictment voted April 9 encompassing all the proceedings on the charges was filed with the court.

    The court also noted the impracticality of requiring a superseding indictment in this circumstance. The court stated, “Unless the proceedings have been flawed or the District Attorney’s actions have risked some prejudice on defendant within the meaning of CPL 210.35 (5), and we see none, he was free to act as he did.”