From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 28, 1995
214 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 28, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law, motion denied, indictment reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: The People appeal from an order of Supreme Court that dismissed an indictment charging defendant with robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 165.40), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01).

The victim and sole eyewitness testified before the Grand Jury that defendant was one of two men who robbed him at gunpoint. A Wade hearing was subsequently held and the court suppressed any identification of defendant by the victim because of an unduly suggestive showup conducted by the police. The court thereafter granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that, without the identification testimony, the Grand Jury lacked "sufficient, competent and admissible" evidence to justify voting the indictment.

The court erred in dismissing the indictment on the ground that, absent the identification testimony, the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient (see, CPL 210.20 [b]). Although the identification evidence was subsequently found to be unreliable and incompetent based on the extrinsic proof presented at the Wade hearing, it supported a determination of guilt when presented to the Grand Jury (see, People v Swamp, 84 N.Y.2d 725, 731). As the Court of Appeals recently stated, "[e]vidence deemed inadmissible at trial after extrinsic proof reveals some infirmity may nevertheless have supported a prima facie case at the Grand Jury stage" (see, People v Swamp, supra, at 732).

Additionally, defendant was not entitled to dismissal pursuant to CPL 210.20 (1) (h). Although the People's case is weakened without identification testimony, there is no legal impediment to conviction (see, People v Swamp, supra, at 732).


Summaries of

People v. Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 28, 1995
214 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Gordon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. ERIC GORDON, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Apr 28, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 601

Citing Cases

People v. Gordon

Supreme Court agreed and granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, noting that in the absence of…

People v. Morrissey

• Where there is a Brady violation so severe that "it would be impossible for the defendants to receive a…