grand jury inquiry in New York

2026CPL 190.25 (6) provides, as relevant here, that "[w]here necessary or appropriate, the court or the district attorney, or both, must instruct the grand jury concerning the law with respect to its duties or any matter before it." "If the prosecutor fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment" ( People v Graham , 148 AD3d 1517, 1519 [4th Dept 2017]; see Lancaster , 69 NY2d at 27-28 ; People v Valles , 62 NY2d 36, 38-39 [1984]).

2025If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment ( see id. § 210.35[5]; People v Valles , 62 NY2d 36, 38 ). "'[A] prosecutor should instruct the [g]rand [j]ury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'" ( People v Grant , 113 AD3d 875, 876 , quoting People v Wilson , 228 AD2d 708, 709 ; see People v Tunit , 149 AD3d 1110, 1111 ).

1994A Grand Jury hearing is not intended to be a "mini-trial”, at which competing evidence is weighed and questions of fact resolved; rather, its purpose is simply to determine whether the evidence proffered by the People, if fully credited, would support a conviction (see, People v Mitchell, supra, at 513; People v Lancaster, 69 NY2d 20, 30 , cert denied 480 US 922 ).

1994A Grand Jury hearing is not intended to be a "mini-trial”, at which competing evidence is weighed and questions of fact resolved; rather, its purpose is simply to determine whether the evidence proffered by the People, if fully credited, would support a conviction (see, People v Mitchell, supra, at 513; People v Lancaster, 69 NY2d 20, 30 , cert denied 480 US 922 ).

2014The prosecutor’s failure to instruct the grand jury on that defense impaired the integrity of that body (see CPL 210.35 [5]; cf. People v Malan-Pomaeyna, 72 AD3d 988 [2010]; People v Samuels, 12 AD3d 695, 698-699 [2004]).

2014The prosecutor’s failure to instruct the grand jury on that defense impaired the integrity of that body (see CPL 210.35 [5]; cf. People v Malan-Pomaeyna, 72 AD3d 988 [2010]; People v Samuels, 12 AD3d 695, 698-699 [2004]).

2017Defendant failed to make a pretrial motion to dismiss the count of the indictment charging him with resisting arrest on the ground that the prosecutor failed to instruct the grand jury on the defense of justification, and thus his challenge to that count of the indictment is not preserved for our review (see People v Fisher, 101 AD3d 1786 , 1786 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1098 [2013]).

2017Defendant failed to make a pretrial motion to dismiss the count of the indictment charging him with resisting arrest on the ground that the prosecutor failed to instruct the grand jury on the defense of justification, and thus his challenge to that count of the indictment is not preserved for our review (see People v Fisher, 101 AD3d 1786 , 1786 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1098 [2013]).

2017If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment (see CPL 210.35 [5]; People v Valles, 62 NY2d at 38 ; People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d at 395-396 ).

2014The Court of Appeals has held that “a Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law,” and that legal instructions are “sufficient if the District Attorney provides the Grand Jury with enough information to enable it intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed and to determine whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material elements of the crime.” (People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394-395 [1980].) Grand jury instructions are defective only when they are “so misleading o

2025If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment ( see id. § 210.35[5]; People v Valles , 62 NY2d 36, 38). "'[A] prosecutor should instruct the [g]rand [j]ury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'" ( People v Grant , 113 AD3d 875, 876, quoting People v Wilson , 228 AD2d 708, 709; see People v Tunit , 149 AD3d 1110, 1111).

2025If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment ( see id. § 210.35[5]; People v Valles , 62 NY2d 36, 38 ). "'[A] prosecutor should instruct the [g]rand [j]ury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'" ( People v Grant , 113 AD3d 875, 876 , quoting People v Wilson , 228 AD2d 708, 709 ; see People v Tunit , 149 AD3d 1110, 1111 ).

2017Although defendant testified before the grand jury that he possessed the machete to protect himself and his girlfriend from the man at defendant’s apartment, who had a board with nails in it, it is well established that, “[b]ecause the possession of a weapon is distinct from the use of such weapon, ‘there are no circumstances when justification . . . can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon’ ” (People v Cohens, 81 AD3d 1442, 1444 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 894 [2011], quoting People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267 [1986]; see People v Taylor, 140 AD3d 1738, 1740 [2016]).

2017Although defendant testified before the grand jury that he possessed the machete to protect himself and his girlfriend from the man at defendant’s apartment, who had a board with nails in it, it is well established that, “[b]ecause the possession of a weapon is distinct from the use of such weapon, ‘there are no circumstances when justification . . . can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon’ ” (People v Cohens, 81 AD3d 1442, 1444 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 894 [2011], quoting People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267 [1986]; see People v Taylor, 140 AD3d 1738, 1740 [2016]).

2026CPL 190.25 (6) provides, as relevant here, that "[w]here necessary or appropriate, the court or the district attorney, or both, must instruct the grand jury concerning the law with respect to its duties or any matter before it." "If the prosecutor fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment" ( People v Graham , 148 AD3d 1517, 1519 [4th Dept 2017]; see Lancaster , 69 NY2d at 27-28 ; People v Valles , 62 NY2d 36, 38-39 [1984]).

1994A Grand Jury hearing is not intended to be a "mini-trial”, at which competing evidence is weighed and questions of fact resolved; rather, its purpose is simply to determine whether the evidence proffered by the People, if fully credited, would support a conviction (see, People v Mitchell, supra, at 513; People v Lancaster, 69 NY2d 20, 30 , cert denied 480 US 922 ).

2017Although defendant testified before the grand jury that he possessed the machete to protect himself and his girlfriend from the man at defendant’s apartment, who had a board with nails in it, it is well established that, “[b]ecause the possession of a weapon is distinct from the use of such weapon, ‘there are no circumstances when justification . . . can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon’ ” (People v Cohens, 81 AD3d 1442, 1444 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 894 [2011], quoting People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267 [1986]; see People v Taylor, 140 AD3d 1738, 1740 [2016]).

2017Although defendant testified before the grand jury that he possessed the machete to protect himself and his girlfriend from the man at defendant’s apartment, who had a board with nails in it, it is well established that, “[b]ecause the possession of a weapon is distinct from the use of such weapon, ‘there are no circumstances when justification . . . can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon’ ” (People v Cohens, 81 AD3d 1442, 1444 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 894 [2011], quoting People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267 [1986]; see People v Taylor, 140 AD3d 1738, 1740 [2016]).

2017Although defendant testified before the grand jury that he possessed the machete to protect himself and his girlfriend from the man at defendant’s apartment, who had a board with nails in it, it is well established that, “[b]ecause the possession of a weapon is distinct from the use of such weapon, ‘there are no circumstances when justification . . . can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon’ ” (People v Cohens, 81 AD3d 1442, 1444 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 894 [2011], quoting People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267 [1986]; see People v Taylor, 140 AD3d 1738, 1740 [2016]).

2017Although defendant testified before the grand jury that he possessed the machete to protect himself and his girlfriend from the man at defendant’s apartment, who had a board with nails in it, it is well established that, “[b]ecause the possession of a weapon is distinct from the use of such weapon, ‘there are no circumstances when justification . . . can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon’ ” (People v Cohens, 81 AD3d 1442, 1444 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 894 [2011], quoting People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267 [1986]; see People v Taylor, 140 AD3d 1738, 1740 [2016]).

2014Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present evidence and to confront witnesses against him when County Court precluded certain documents from evidence and limited cross-examination of a witness is likewise not preserved for our review (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Bryant, 93 AD3d 1344, 1344-1345 [2012]; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 794 [2009]).

2014Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present evidence and to confront witnesses against him when County Court precluded certain documents from evidence and limited cross-examination of a witness is likewise not preserved for our review (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Bryant, 93 AD3d 1344, 1344-1345 [2012]; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 794 [2009]).

2014Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present evidence and to confront witnesses against him when County Court precluded certain documents from evidence and limited cross-examination of a witness is likewise not preserved for our review (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Bryant, 93 AD3d 1344, 1344-1345 [2012]; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 794 [2009]).

2014Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present evidence and to confront witnesses against him when County Court precluded certain documents from evidence and limited cross-examination of a witness is likewise not preserved for our review (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Bryant, 93 AD3d 1344, 1344-1345 [2012]; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 794 [2009]).

2014Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present evidence and to confront witnesses against him when County Court precluded certain documents from evidence and limited cross-examination of a witness is likewise not preserved for our review (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Bryant, 93 AD3d 1344, 1344-1345 [2012]; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 794 [2009]).

2014Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present evidence and to confront witnesses against him when County Court precluded certain documents from evidence and limited cross-examination of a witness is likewise not preserved for our review (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Bryant, 93 AD3d 1344, 1344-1345 [2012]; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 794 [2009]).

2014Defendant’s contention that the People failed to instruct the grand jury on the defense of a claim of right for the larceny counts is not preserved for our review (see § 155.15 [1]; People v West, 4 AD3d 791, 792-793 [2004]; see also People v Fisher, 101 AD3d 1786 , 1786-1787 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1098 [2013]).

2014Defendant’s contention that the People failed to instruct the grand jury on the defense of a claim of right for the larceny counts is not preserved for our review (see § 155.15 [1]; People v West, 4 AD3d 791, 792-793 [2004]; see also People v Fisher, 101 AD3d 1786 , 1786-1787 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1098 [2013]).

2026CPL 190.25 (6) provides, as relevant here, that "[w]here necessary or appropriate, the court or the district attorney, or both, must instruct the grand jury concerning the law with respect to its duties or any matter before it." "If the prosecutor fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment" ( People v Graham , 148 AD3d 1517, 1519 [4th Dept 2017]; see Lancaster , 69 NY2d at 27-28 ; People v Valles , 62 NY2d 36, 38-39 [1984]).

2019With respect to grand jury instructions, CPL 190.25 (6) provides, as relevant here, that, "[w]here necessary or appropriate, the court or the district attorney, or both, must instruct the grand jury concerning the law with respect to its duties or any matter before it." "If the prosecutor fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment" ( People v Graham , 148 AD3d 1517, 1519 [4th Dept 2017]; see People v Valles , 62 NY2d 36, 38-39 [1984]).

2024As courts have routinely found, "a Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law." People v. Calbud , 49 NY2d 1140 (1980). [*2]Specifically, in People v. Hilaire , the Second Department considered this question and held the following: "[t]he prosecutor's failure to define 'operable' did not render the Grand Jury instruction so incomplete and misleading as to impair the integrity of the Grand Jury." People v. Hilaire , 270 AD2d at 360 (2nd Dept. 2000) (citing People v. Calbud , 49 NY2d 1140 (1980)).

2024As courts have routinely found, "a Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law." People v. Calbud , 49 NY2d 1140 (1980). [*2]Specifically, in People v. Hilaire , the Second Department considered this question and held the following: "[t]he prosecutor's failure to define 'operable' did not render the Grand Jury instruction so incomplete and misleading as to impair the integrity of the Grand Jury." People v. Hilaire , 270 AD2d at 360 (2nd Dept. 2000) (citing People v. Calbud , 49 NY2d 1140 (1980)).

2013It is well-settled that a prosecutor is not required to present mitigating defenses to a grand jury (People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 475 [2002]; People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38-39 [1984]).

2013It is well-settled that a prosecutor is not required to present mitigating defenses to a grand jury (People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 475 [2002]; People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38-39 [1984]).

1995In reaching this conclusion the court, citing People v Martinez ( 111 Misc 2d 67 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1981]), noted " '[t]he District Attorney’s papers must at least give the defendant some idea of the "nature and scope of the Grand Jury’s inquiry” so as to enable him to appear meaningfully as a witness and, if necessary, secure the effective aid of counsel’ ”.

1993As the Supreme Court stated in People v Martinez ( 111 Misc 2d 67, 69 ): "The District Attorney’s papers must at least give the defendant some idea 'of the nature and scope of the Grand Jury’s inquiry’ so as to enable him to appear meaningfully as a witness and, if necessary, secure the effective aid of counsel (People v Root, 87 Misc 2d 482, 487 )” (see also, People v Natoli, 112 Misc 2d 1069, 1071 ).

1991The CPL clearly permits resubmission of charges to a Grand Jury, with judicial permission, when the first Grand Jury hearing the evidence has rejected it as insufficient (CPL 190.75 [1], [3]; see, People v Cade, 74 NY2d 410 ).

1990The Court of Appeals has concluded, however, that CPL 190.60 (4) and 190.75 (1) and (3) require permission to resubmit charges only where the Grand Jury hearing the evidence has rejected it as insufficient (see, People v Cade, 74 NY2d 410 ).

2025If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment ( see id. § 210.35[5]; People v Valles , 62 NY2d 36, 38). "'[A] prosecutor should instruct the [g]rand [j]ury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'" ( People v Grant , 113 AD3d 875, 876, quoting People v Wilson , 228 AD2d 708, 709; see People v Tunit , 149 AD3d 1110, 1111).

2025If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment ( see id. § 210.35[5]; People v Valles , 62 NY2d 36, 38 ). "'[A] prosecutor should instruct the [g]rand [j]ury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'" ( People v Grant , 113 AD3d 875, 876 , quoting People v Wilson , 228 AD2d 708, 709 ; see People v Tunit , 149 AD3d 1110, 1111 ).

2019Viewing the evidence before the grand jury in the light most favorable to the defendant ( see People v Padgett , 60 NY2d 142, 144-145 ; People v Tunit , 149 AD3d 1110, 1111 ), there was no reasonable view of the evidence warranting an instruction on that defense ( see People v Chang , 12 Misc 3d 134[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 51190[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see also People v Green , 5 NY3d 538, 543 ; People v Reid , 69 NY2d 469, 476-477 ).

2017Viewing the evidence before the grand jury in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142, 144-145 [1983]), we find that there was a reasonable view of the evidence warranting instructions on the definition of joint or common owner and the defense of claim of right.

2005The latter notice has been interpreted to require that the defendant is provided with sufficient information concerning the nature and scope of the grand jury inquiry so as to enable him to appear meaningfully as a witness and, if necessary, secure the effective aid of counsel (see People v Adams, 190 AD2d 677, 678 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1010 [1993]).

1995(People v Adams, supra, at 678 .) Thus, the court finds that CPL 190.50 (5) (a) does not require that the prosecution apprise a defendant of each specific charge that will be presented to the Grand Jury, but rather of the general nature of the charges in order for a defendant to make a considered decision as to whether or not to testify.