Case Detail
CitationPeople v. Miller, 973 N.Y.S.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
CrimeNon-violent, other
Pros. First NameUKN
Pros. Last NameUKN
Trial Year2013
BodyAppeals court
OpinionThe New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the prosecutor's use of leading questions or elicitation of hearsay testimony from various witnesses before a grand jury did not require dismissal of the indictment. “Dismissal of an indictment pursuant to CPL 210.35(5) is a drastic, exceptional remedy and should thus be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the [g]rand [j]ury' [citations omitted]. Contrary to County Court's finding, the record as a whole does not reveal a 'pervasive mishandling' of the manner in which this case was presented to the grand jury. To the extent that the prosecutor asked leading questions or elicited hearsay testimony from the various witnesses, we note that 'not every improper comment, elicitation of inadmissible testimony, impermissible question or mere mistake renders an indictment defective. [Rather], the submission of some inadmissible evidence [typically] will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment' [citations omitted]. Inasmuch as we are satisfied—based upon our review of the grand jury minutes—that there otherwise is legally sufficient (and admissible) evidence to sustain count 1 of the indictment, the isolated instances of hearsay testimony, which were accompanied by appropriate limiting instructions, do not warrant dismissal thereof [citations omitted]. We similarly are persuaded that the prosecutor's limited use of leading questions did not impair the integrity of the grand jury proceeding [citations omitted]. Accordingly, County Court erred in concluding that the indictment was subject to dismissal under CPL 210.35(5)."
Determination Year2013
Misconduct TypeT
C/S EffectNo effect
Pros. Misc. ReportedUKN
Sanction TypeUKN
Web linkN/A