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…
1ConcurrenceKaye, J.
While concurring in the result reached, I write to express disagreement with the statement added by the majority that a District Attorney is free to seek indictment for the highest crime the evidence will support, and need never present defenses in mitigation, however conclusive or pervasive the evidence in support of such defenses might be.
By holding that a defense must be submitted to the Grand Jury only if its acceptance would result in exoneration, the majority ascribes an unduly narrow function to *40the Grand Jury. To be sure, the Grand Jury performs a vital function in determining whether…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. Calbud, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- People v. FelixNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. KarassikNew York Supreme Court · 1977
- People v. GaluppoNew York Supreme Court · 1979
- People v. RosenbaumNew York Supreme Court · 1981