Summary
In People v Robinson (98 NY2d 755, 756) the Court of Appeals established a two prong analysis to be conducted by the court: "As a threshold matter, a party seeking disclosure of grand jury minutes must establish a compelling and particularized need for them.
Summary of this case from People v. RidgeOpinion
Nos. 127 and 128
Decided October 22, 2002.
APPEAL, in the first above-entitled action, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered November 9, 2001, which (1) reversed, on the law, an order of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), granting a motion by defendant to dismiss the indictment to the extent of reducing the crime charged in the indictment from assault in the second degree to assualt in the third degree; (2) denied defendant's motion; (3) reinstated the indictment; and (4) remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings on the indictment.
APPEAL, in the second above-entitled action, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme COurt in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered December 21, 2001, whcih affirmed a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, Jr.), rendered upon a verdict convicting defendant of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree. Following defendant's conviction, pending appeal, the Appellate Division denied defendant's motion for an order directing the production of the grand jury minutes.
People v. Robinson, 288 A.D.2d 887, affirmed. People v. Jansen, 289 A.D.2d 1050, affirmed.
Kathleen McDonough, for appellant.
Arthur G. Weinstein, for respondent.
Attorney General of the State of New York, amicus curiae.
James Eckert, for appellant in the second case.
Patrick H. Fierro, for respondent Jansen
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
MEMORANDUM:
In each case, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendants contend that the Appellate Division violated their appellate due process rights when it denied their requests for access to Grand Jury minutes. As a threshold matter, a party seeking disclosure of Grand Jury minutes must establish a compelling and particularized need for them. Only then must the court balance various factors to assess, in its discretion, whether disclosure is appropriate under the circumstances presented (People v. Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d 765, 769; Matter of Lungen v. Kane, 88 N.Y.2d 861, 862-863; Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d 436, 444). This two-step procedure comports with the requirements of due process (see generally, People v. Ramos, 85 N.Y.2d 678, 684).
In these appeals, defendants did not meet their threshold burden of demonstrating a compelling and particularized need for the minutes. We conclude, therefore, that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion and did not deprive defendants of their rights to appellate due process and effective assistance of appellate counsel in either case.
The additional contention raised by defendant Robinson relating to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the assault in the second degree charge is without merit.
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.