From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 11, 1993
81 N.Y.2d 798 (N.Y. 1993)

Opinion

Argued January 12, 1993

Decided February 11, 1993

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Thomas Galligan, J.

Stephen Monick, New York City, and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Birgit E. Kollmar and Beth J. Thomas of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant's claim — that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective due to the prosecutor's reliance on legal instructions given earlier in the day to the same Grand Jury but with respect to different cases — is not preserved for our review. Defendant's omnibus motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes did not specify the grounds now claimed and his sole argument to the trial court after inspection was that the prosecutor improperly usurped control of the grand jurors' decision on what charges to vote.

Acting Chief Judge SIMONS and Judges KAYE, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., BELLACOSA and SMITH concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 11, 1993
81 N.Y.2d 798 (N.Y. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LARRY BROWN, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 11, 1993

Citations

81 N.Y.2d 798 (N.Y. 1993)
595 N.Y.S.2d 370
611 N.E.2d 271

Citing Cases

People v. Tunit

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the second degree. On appeal, the…

People v. Tunit

On appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the grand jury proceeding was defective within the meaning…