From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Salisbury

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 24, 1992
182 A.D.2d 1105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 24, 1992

Appeal from the Cattaraugus County Court, Kelly, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly dismissed the indictment charging defendant with assault in the second degree. The prosecutor's examination of defendant before the Grand Jury regarding prior assaults and his gratuitous comment that his father had prosecuted defendant for one of them had no probative value and "only served impermissibly to foster speculation that defendant, as a person with a violent disposition, was likely to have provoked the assault" (People v Mena, 70 A.D.2d 550; see also, People v Grafton, 115 A.D.2d 952; cf., People v Peek, 40 N.Y.2d 920). The prosecutor's failure to give an appropriate limiting instruction that defendant's prior behavior was to be considered only on credibility compounded the prejudice (see, People v Adams, 81 Misc.2d 528; cf., People v Thompson, 116 A.D.2d 377). The court acted within its discretion in permitting the People to submit to another Grand Jury (CPL 210.20).

We disagree, however, with County Court's determination that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient to sustain the indictment. The alleged victim's testimony regarding the incident, albeit disputed, was sufficient.


Summaries of

People v. Salisbury

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 24, 1992
182 A.D.2d 1105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Salisbury

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. WILLIAM SALISBURY…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 1105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 887

Citing Cases

People v. Brown

During the presentation to the Grand Jury, in response to a Grand Juror's inquiry as to why the defendant had…