People v. Valles
New York Court of Appeals
POINTS OF COUNSEL The Grand Jury proceeding was not “defective” due to the absence of an instruction by the prosecutor on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance.
Read the full summary
POINTS OF COUNSEL The Grand Jury proceeding was not “defective” due to the absence of an instruction by the prosecutor on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. (.People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389; People v Shelton, 88 Mise 2d 136, 78 AD2d 821; People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668; People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288; People v Ford, 102 Mise 2d 160; United States v Calandra, 414 US 338; Matter of Additional Jan. 1979 Grand Jury of Albany Supreme Ct. v Doe, 50 NY2d 14; People v Rosenbaum, 107 Mise 2d 501; People v Galuppo, 98 Mise 2d 395; People v Karassik, 90 Mise 2d 839.) The courts…
1DissentMeyer, J.
In holding that whether the Grand Jury must be instructed concerning the effect of *42evidence presented to it the person under investigation, a distinction is to be made between exculpatory defenses, which must be charged, and mitigating defenses, which need not be, the majority ignores the common-law history of the Grand Jury, the purpose of allowing a potential defendant to appear before that body and to request that it call other witnesses on his or her behalf, and the substantial prejudice that may result to one indicted for a higher degree of offense than the evidence warrants. I,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Costello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Keeble v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- People v. GloverNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Ex Parte BainSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.