People v. Wu
2017 NY Slip Op 5858, 59 N.Y.S.3d 121, 152 A.D.3d 802 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court cannot dismiss an indictment based on an alleged defect in grand jury proceedings not raised by the defendant without giving the prosecution notice and an opportunity to respond. Furthermore, the admission of improper bolstering testimony before a grand jury does not require dismissal of the indictment where other sufficient, admissible evidence supports the indictment and the integrity of the proceeding is not impaired to the point of prejudicing the defendant.
Facts:
- On February 12, 2015, a man and a woman broke into the complainant's home while she was present.
- The intruders stole the complainant's cell phone and iPod.
- Following the incident, the complainant participated in a show-up identification procedure.
- During the procedure, the complainant identified the defendant as one of the individuals involved in the break-in.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted the defendant.
- The defendant filed an omnibus motion in the County Court, Rockland County (the trial court), seeking to dismiss the indictment.
- The defendant argued for dismissal on the grounds that the evidence was legally insufficient and contained inadmissible hearsay.
- The County Court granted the motion to dismiss the indictment, but on a different ground not raised by the defendant: that a police officer's testimony improperly bolstered the complainant's identification.
- The People, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order dismissing the indictment to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's testimony before a grand jury, which implicitly bolsters a complainant's identification of the defendant, impair the integrity of the proceeding to such a degree that it requires dismissal of the indictment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A police officer's testimony that implicitly bolsters an eyewitness identification does not require dismissal of the indictment when sufficient other admissible evidence supports the indictment and the integrity of the grand jury proceeding is not impaired. The court first held that the trial court erred procedurally by dismissing the indictment on a specific ground—improper bolstering—that the defendant had not raised, without affording the prosecution (the People) notice and an opportunity to respond as required by CPL 210.45 [1]. In any event, addressing the substance of the issue, the court found that the officer's testimony did not warrant dismissal. The standard for dismissal requires that the grand jury proceeding fail to conform to statutory requirements to such a degree that its integrity is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result. Here, given the other admissible proof supporting the indictment, such as the complainant's own identification testimony, no prejudice to the defendant could have resulted from the officer's testimony.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to dismiss an indictment based on procedural or evidentiary errors in a grand jury proceeding. It clarifies that errors like improper bolstering are subject to a harmless error analysis, meaning they will not invalidate an indictment if sufficient untainted evidence exists to support the charges. The ruling also underscores a critical procedural safeguard for the prosecution, preventing trial courts from sua sponte dismissing indictments on grounds not argued by the defense without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, thereby preserving the adversarial nature of the process.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Wu