grand jurors defense in New York

2010Rather, it is sufficient that the grand jury be provided with enough information for it to intelligently decide whether a crime has been committed and whether legally sufficient evidence exists to establish the material elements of that crime (see id. at 394-395 ). “[W]here the evidence suggests that a complete defense such as justification may be present, the prosecutor must [also] charge the grand jurors on that defense, providing enough information to enable them to determine whether the defense, in light of the evidence, should preclude the criminal prosecution” (People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96

2007The court properly found that the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that defendant acted under duress (see Penal Law § 40.00; People v Speros, 186 AD2d 434 [1992]), that therefore the People were required to charge the grand jurors on that defense (see People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 115 [1986]), and that their failure to do so impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceeding to such a degree that defendant may have been prejudiced (see People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36 [1984]).

2025To that, "[w]here the evidence suggests that a complete defense such as justification may be present, the prosecutor must also charge the grand jurors on that defense, providing enough information to enable them to determine whether the defense, in light of the evidence, should preclude the criminal prosecution" ( People v Waddell , 78 AD3d at 1326 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; accord People v Calafell , 211 AD3d 1114, 1118 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1077 [2023]).

2025To that, "[w]here the evidence suggests that a complete defense such as justification may be present, the prosecutor must also charge the grand jurors on that defense, providing enough information to enable them to determine whether the defense, in light of the evidence, should preclude the criminal prosecution" ( People v Waddell , 78 AD3d at 1326 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; accord People v Calafell , 211 AD3d 1114, 1118 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1077 [2023]).

2010Rather, it is sufficient that the grand jury be provided with enough information for it to intelligently decide whether a crime has been committed and whether legally sufficient evidence exists to establish the material elements of that crime (see id. at 394-395 ). “[W]here the evidence suggests that a complete defense such as justification may be present, the prosecutor must [also] charge the grand jurors on that defense, providing enough information to enable them to determine whether the defense, in light of the evidence, should preclude the criminal prosecution” (People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96

1990The standard for instructing a Grand Jury was established in People v Calbud, Inc. ( 49 NY2d 389, 394-395 , supra): "We deem it 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.” Where, as here, "the evidence suggests that a complete defense such as justification may be present, the prosecutor must charge the grand jurors on that defense, providing enough information to enable

2025To that, "[w]here the evidence suggests that a complete defense such as justification may be present, the prosecutor must also charge the grand jurors on that defense, providing enough information to enable them to determine whether the defense, in light of the evidence, should preclude the criminal prosecution" ( People v Waddell , 78 AD3d at 1326 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; accord People v Calafell , 211 AD3d 1114, 1118 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1077 [2023]).

2025To that, "[w]here the evidence suggests that a complete defense such as justification may be present, the prosecutor must also charge the grand jurors on that defense, providing enough information to enable them to determine whether the defense, in light of the evidence, should preclude the criminal prosecution" ( People v Waddell , 78 AD3d at 1326 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; accord People v Calafell , 211 AD3d 1114, 1118 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1077 [2023]).

2024Contrary to defendant's further contention, the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was not impaired by the prosecutor's failure to instruct the grand jurors on the defense of temporary innocent possession of a weapon. "[T]here is no requirement that the [g]rand [j]ury must be charged with every potential defense suggested [in] evidence," but, rather, the People are required to charge "only those defenses that the evidence will reasonably support" ( People v Moses , 197 AD3d 951, 952 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1097 [2021], reconsideration denied 37 NY3d 1163 [2022] [internal quotati

2024Contrary to defendant's further contention, the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was not impaired by the prosecutor's failure to instruct the grand jurors on the defense of temporary innocent possession of a weapon. "[T]here is no requirement that the [g]rand [j]ury must be charged with every potential defense suggested [in] evidence," but, rather, the People are required to charge "only those defenses that the evidence will reasonably support" ( People v Moses , 197 AD3d 951, 952 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1097 [2021], reconsideration denied 37 NY3d 1163 [2022] [internal quotati

2024Here, we conclude that an instruction regarding the defense of temporary and innocent possession of a weapon was not warranted inasmuch as there was insufficient evidence before the grand jury to support such a defense ( see Moses , 197 AD3d at 952 ; cf. People v Graham , 148 AD3d 1517, 1518-1519 [4th Dept 2017]).

2024Here, we conclude that an instruction regarding the defense of temporary and innocent possession of a weapon was not warranted inasmuch as there was insufficient evidence before the grand jury to support such a defense ( see Moses , 197 AD3d at 952 ; cf. People v Graham , 148 AD3d 1517, 1518-1519 [4th Dept 2017]).

2022The defense of "[t]emporary and lawful possession may be established where there is a legal excuse for having the weapon as well as facts tending to establish that, once possession has been obtained, the weapon has not been used in a dangerous manner" ( People v Curry , 85 AD3d 1209, 1211 [3d Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis, brackets and citation omitted], lv denied 17 NY3d 815 [2011]; see People v Williams, 36 NY3d 156 , 161 [2020]) .