 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hopkins8/30/2004
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
This is a decision on the omnibus motion filed by the defendant who is charged with the crimes of murder in the second degree, a violation of Section 125.25 (2) of the Penal Law of the State of New York, leaving accident result death/injury, reckless driving and speeding, violations of Sections 600 (2) (a) (b), 1212, and 1180 (d) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York, respectively, whereby he seeks various forms of relief. The court has considered each of the issues raised by the defendant and has set forth herein below its determinations respecting such issues.
Motion to Inspect the Grand Jury Minutes and to Dismiss the Indictment
Defendant has moved this court for inspection of the grand jury minutes and for dismissal of the indictment on grounds that the evidence before the grand jury was not legally sufficient to establish the offenses charged therein and that the grand jury proceeding was defective. Additionally, the defendant claims that the indictment must be dismissed because there are jurisdictional and legal impediments to any conviction of the charged offenses.
Upon granting the motion to inspect the grand jury minutes in this case, and after conducting a review of those minutes, the Court finds that release of the minutes, or certain portions thereof, to the defendant is not necessary to assist the court in making its determination of the motion to dismiss (see CPL § 210.30 ). Additionally, the Court has made the following findings regarding defendant's motion to dismiss the charges contained in the indictment:
1. Pursuant to Article 190 of the Criminal Procedure Law, there was a sufficient number of grand jurors present who heard the evidence presented on April 6, 2004, April 13, 2004, and April 16, 2004.
2. The legal instructions to the Grand Jury by the Assistant District Attorney were in all respects sufficient and proper.
Turning to defendant's claims that evidence before the grand jury was insufficient, the standard of review to be applied on a motion to dismiss an indictment upon such ground, requires that the court determine whether there was competent evidence, which accepted as true, would establish every element of the crime and the defendant's commission thereof; this means a prima facie case, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Mikuszewski, 73 NY2d 407, 411; People v. Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 115). Indictments "must be based on competent evidence, meaning evidence not subject to an exclusionary rule, such as the prohibition against hearsay" (People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d 725, 730; Prince, Richardson on Evidence, § 4-102, at 137 [Farrell 11th ed]). Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Warner-Lambert Co., 51 NY2d 295, 299, cert denied 450 US 1031), the evidence before the grand jury respecting each of these charges, if unexplained and uncontradicted, and deferring all questions as to weight or quality of the evidence, must be legally sufficient to support a determination of guilt (see CPL § 210.20 ; People v. Mayo, 36 NY2d 1002, 1004); People v. Jennings, 69 NY2d at 115; People v. Mikuszewski, 73 NY2d at 411; People v. Galatro, 84 NY2d 160; People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d at 730; People v. Gordon, 88 NY2d 92). Lastly, it is accepted that " he District Attorney is free to seek an indictment for the highest crime the evidence will support (People v. Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 39).
In this case, evidence before the grand jury came in the form of testimony from witnesses at th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|