You are here: / / PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF...
,

PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the grand jury proceedings were defective because of the prosecutor’s failure to instruct the jury on the defense of common ownership. Defendant testified in the grand jury that the property alleged to have been stolen was jointly owned with the complainant, who was a partner in the business. The conviction was reversed in the interest of justice and the indictment was dismissed:

” [A] prosecutor should instruct the Grand Jury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'” … . If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment… .

Viewing the evidence before the grand jury in the light most favorable to the defendant … , we find that there was a reasonable view of the evidence warranting instructions on the definition of joint or common owner and the defense of claim of right. Penal Law § 155.00(5) provides that “[a] joint or common owner of property shall not be deemed to have a right of possession thereto superior to that of any other joint or common owner thereof.” Consequently, a partner may not be charged with stealing the partnership’s assets from another partner … . Pursuant to Penal Law § 155.15(1) “[i]n any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith.” The defendant’s grand jury testimony indicated that the defendant’s relationship with the complaining witness was that of a partner, not an employee … and that the defendant took the funds at issue under a claim of right … . Consequently, the District Attorney’s failure to instruct the grand jury with respect to the definition of joint or common owner and the defense of claim of right so substantially impaired the integrity of the proceedings as to require the dismissal of the indictment … . People v Tunit, 2017 NY Slip Op 03201, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/GRAND JURY (PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/COMMON OWNERSHIP DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)

You might also like
PAYOR OF VOLUNTARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Election, Caused by Law Office Failure, Should Have Been Allowed
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS MEDIDCAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE HOSPITAL-DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF THE MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS AND OFFERED CONSLUSORY ASSERTIONS; THEREFORE THE HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Charging Lien on Settlement Award Allowed—Attorney Withdrew By Mutual Consent
CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE SUGGESTED THE WAIVER WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO APPEAL; THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT ON THE STREET WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REACHING FOR AN OBJECT IN DEFENDANT’S SWEATSHIRT POCKET; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT AND DISCARDING OF THE WEAPON WAS NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE OFFICER’S UNJUSTIFIED ACTIONS; THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT. PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT, WHO RAN, HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, WHEN POLICE TOLD HIM TO...