PEOPLE v. OWENS (2000)

This is a death penalty case.   Defendant John Owens is charged with two counts of Murder in the First Degree, three counts of Murder in the Second Degree, and three counts of Rape in the First Degree.   The District Attorney's office filed a Notice of Intent To Seek The Death Penalty pursuant to CPL § 250.40 on January 24, 2000.   With no bail request made to date, Defendant is currently being held in the Monroe County Jail awaiting his trial.

Anticipating a future motion to dismiss, Defendant requests that this Court inspect and release the stenographic minutes of the Grand Jury proceedings pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §§ 210.30 and 190.25(4)(a).   In the alternative, Defendant asks this Court to require the District Attorney to answer eighty (80) interrogatories, seventy-seven (77) pertaining to the Grand Jury proceedings and three (3) related to the indictment.

Criminal Procedure Law § 190.25(4)(a) provides that “[g]rand jury proceedings are secret, and no grand juror, or other person ․ may, except ․ upon written order of the court, disclose the nature or substance of any grand jury testimony, evidence, or any decision, result or other matter attending a grand jury proceeding.”   Under CPL § 210.30(3) the release of grand jury testimony is authorized solely when it is “necessary to assist the court in making its determination on [a Defendant's dismissal] motion.”   CPL § 210.30(3) further restricts the release of the minutes to “that grand jury testimony which is relevant to a determination of whether the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to support a charge or charges contained in such indictment.”

 This Court examined the Grand Jury minutes in camera and finds that sufficient evidence was presented to support the indictment.   Nor was the Grand Jury proceeding defective.   The legal instructions to the Grand Jury were properly recorded and legally sufficient.   See People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 426 N.Y.S.2d 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140 (1980).

Despite Defendant's allegations otherwise, the charges herein are straightforward and pose no novel concepts since they mirror well-established non-capital crimes.   Cf. e.g., felony murder, Penal Law § 125.25(3), with Penal Law § 125.27(1)(a)(vii) and (b) (charged in the First and Second Counts of Indictment No. 547/99);  see also, People v. Van Dyne, unpublished, slip opn. at p. 3 (Mon.Cty.Ct. [Marks, J.] (September 3, 1998)).   Thus, the release of the minutes is not required under CPL § 210.30(3) to assist this Court in its determination.   See Sacket v. Bartlett, 241 A.D.2d 97, 101-02, 671 N.Y.S.2d 156 (3rd Dept.1998);  People v. Cjigas, unpublished, slip opn. at p. 36 (Westchester Cty.Ct. [Angiolillo, J.] March 13, 1998);  People v. Shulman, 172 Misc.2d 535, 536, 658 N.Y.S.2d 794 (1997);  People v. Hale, slip opn. at 32-33, 173 Misc.2d 140, 661 N.Y.S.2d 457 (Sup.Ct., Kings Cty.1997) (edited for publication);  People v. Abdallah a/k/a Tom Cruise, unpublished, slip opn. at p. 2 (Mon.Cty.Ct. [Wisner, J.] May 16, 1996).   But, cf. People v. Parker, Indictment No. 97-0762-001, unpublished, slip opn. at 24 (Erie Cty.Ct. [D'Amico, J.] July 2, 1998) and People v. Grinnell, unpublished, slip opn. at p. 2 (Genesee Cty.Ct. [Griffith, J.] March 12, 1997) (finding defendant had made specific and compelling objections requiring release of grand jury minutes under CPL § 210.30(3)).

 Defendant also argues that a “heightened due process” constitutionally afforded all capital defendants compels the release of the minutes.   In a myriad of unpublished opinions, the Courts of New York have uniformly rejected the notion that the potential penalty in a capital case warrants disclosure of grand jury minutes.   See e.g., People v. Santiago, unpublished, slip opn. at p. 2 (Monroe Cty.Ct. [Bristol, J.] January 26, 2000);  People v. Van Dyne, supra;  People v. Johnson, unpublished, slip opn. at p. 3 (Albany Cty. Ct. [Breslin, J.] July 27, 1998);  People v. Bell, slip opn. at 29, 172 Misc.2d 308, 659 N.Y.S.2d 713 (Sup.Ct., Queens County 1997);  People v. Chinn, NYLJ, Nov. 19, 1996, at 31, col 3 (Onondaga Cty.Ct.1996).   Defendant suggests, however, that the unique character of this capital case compels disclosure.   This is the first case in Monroe County where a defendant has been charged with the First Degree Murder of two victims arising out of separate incidents, and yet has not been indicted as a serial murderer.   This is a distinction without a difference.   See People v. Shulman, supra.

Finally, there is no Brady material in the minutes requiring release.   Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963);  cf.  People v. Morgan, 178 Misc.2d 595, 600-01, 682 N.Y.S.2d 533 (Fulton Cty.Ct.1998).   This Court finds no reason to depart from the clear mandate of CPL § 210.30.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes is granted.   Defendant's motion to release the Grand Jury minutes is denied.   For the same reasons articulated above, this Court declines to require the District Attorney to answer the eighty (80) interrogatories relating to the Grand Jury proceedings and the indictment.

DAVID D. EGAN, J.