You are here: / / THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARGUING THAT...
, ,

THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARGUING THAT THE JUDGE’S PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE MADE THE PROSECUTION IMPOSSIBLE; IN THE PROSECUTOR’S ABSENCE AT TRIAL, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO CPL 290.10; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, issued a writ of prohibition against the respondent County Judge nullifying the order dismissing the murder indictment against defendant. The petitioner was the district attorney (DA) who was prosecuting defendant. The DA disagreed with certain preclusion orders issued by the Judge and argued the prosecution of the defendant was rendered impossible by the preclusion of evidence. The DA refused to participate in the trial. At trial, in the DA’s absence, the Judge dismissed the indictment pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 290.10. Because such a dismissal requires a trial as a prerequisite, and because there was no trial, the Third Department held the Judge did not have the authority to dismiss the indictment:

Upon a criminal defendant’s motion, a court may dismiss any count of an indictment on the basis that the trial evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the charged crime (see CPL 290.10 [1] [a]). Critically, a court is empowered to do so “[a]t the conclusion of the [P]eople’s case or at the conclusion of all the evidence” (CPL 290.10 [1]). Based on this language, a dismissal under CPL 290.10 contemplates, at the very least, that a prosecutor actually present a case. This did not occur in the underlying criminal proceeding. Petitioner did not deliver an opening statement, did not call witnesses and did not tender documentary evidence to be received by respondent. Without a case by petitioner, respondent could not dismiss the indictment under CPL 290.10 … . In essence, the dismissal of the indictment was due to the default of petitioner, which respondent lacked authority to do … . Matter of Clegg v Rounds, 2023 NY Slip Op 06181, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: If the prosecutor refuses to participate in the trial, the judge cannot dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 290.10. The statute requires a trial as a prerequisite. Here there was no trial. The prosecutor’s petition for a writ of prohibition against the judge was granted. The “trial” was nullified.

 

You might also like
PETITIONER, A TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUAL, WAS ENTITLED, FOR PERSONAL SAFETY REASONS, TO THE SEALING OF THE RECORD OF HER NAME-CHANGE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE RULING OBJECTED TO IN HER APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW; HER APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD’S CONCLUSION, BASED UPON EXPERT TESTIMONY, THAT CLAIMANT’S STROKE WAS CAUSED BY PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND NOT THE WORK CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THE STROKE WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
Trial Court’s Decision to Conduct Trial in Defendant’s Absence Without Consideration of the Factors Mandated for Consideration by the Court of Appeals Required Reversal
Jury Was Given Written Copies of Portions of Jury Instructions; Judge’s Responses to Subsequent Requests for Jury Instructions and Testimony Read-Back Required Reversal
Criteria for Common-Law Indemnification Explained
Failure to Adequately Describe Location of Slip and Fall Rendered Notice of Intention Jurisdictionally Defective
No Evidence Defendant Agreed to Adjournment—Indictment Dismissed on Speedy Trial Grounds

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

THE JUDGE DID NOT INCLUDE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT ORDER;... THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) DID...