| People v Wisey |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08448 [133 AD3d 799] |
| November 18, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Appellant, v Edward Wisey, Respondent. |
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan ofcounsel), for appellant.
McGuire & Pelaez, P.C., Central Islip, N.Y. (Christopher McGuire of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Toomey,J.), dated July 31, 2014, which granted the defendant's application to dismiss theindictment, made on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legallyinsufficient.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the defendant's application to dismissthe indictment, made on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury waslegally insufficient, is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted tothe County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
"Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate'whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained anduncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of theevidence—would warrant conviction' " (People v Mills, 1 NY3d269, 274-275 [2003], quoting People v Carroll, 93 NY2d 564, 568 [1999];see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 525 [1998]; People v Jennings, 69NY2d 103, 114 [1986]; Peoplev Ryan, 125 AD3d 695, 696 [2015]; People v Woodson, 105 AD3d 782 [2013]; People v Warren, 98 AD3d634, 635 [2012]). " 'Legally sufficient evidence' means competent evidencewhich, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and thedefendant's commission thereof" (CPL 70.10 [1]; see People v Ryan, 125 AD3dat 696; People v Woodson,105 AD3d 782 [2013]). " 'In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legalsufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond areasonable doubt' " (People v Jessup, 90 AD3d 782, 783 [2011], quotingPeople v Bello, 92 NY2d at 526; see People v Ryan, 125 AD3d at 696;People v Woodson, 105 AD3d at 782). "The reviewing court's inquiry is limitedto 'whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those factssupply proof of every element of the charged crimes,' and whether 'the Grand Jury couldrationally have drawn the guilty inference.' That other, innocent inferences couldpossibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry 'as long as theGrand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference' " (People vBello, 92 NY2d at 526, quoting People v Deegan, 69 NY2d 976, 979 [1987];see People v Woodson, 105AD3d 782 [2013]; People v Warren, 98 AD3d at 635).
Here, the evidence presented to the grand jury, when viewed in the light mostfavorable to the People, was legally sufficient to establish the charge of driving whileintoxicated (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]). The arrestingofficer testified that when he responded to the subject scene, he observed a Hummervehicle tipped over on its side, with telephone poles, trees, and light poles knocked over.The defendant was standing outside the vehicle and there were no other vehicles orpersons in the vicinity. The defendant, who had cuts and bruises, smelled of alcohol, hadbloodshot and glassy eyes, and was staggering on his feet. He informed the officer thathe was "just in an accident." The owner of the vehicle testified that he had given thedefendant, and only the defendant, permission to operate the vehicle on the night inquestion. Contrary to the County Court's conclusion, based on this testimony, and theinferences that logically flow therefrom, the grand jury could have reasonably inferredthat the defendant had been operating the vehicle on the date in question (see Peoplev Booden, 69 NY2d 185, 187 [1987]; People v Blake, 5 NY2d 118 [1958];People v Spencer, 289 AD2d 877 [2001]; People v Tatro, 245 AD2d1040 [1997]; see also People vTyra, 84 AD3d 1758, 1759 [2011]; People v Fenger, 68 AD3d 1441, 1443 [2009]). Since thegrand jury could have rationally drawn such an inference, the fact that the evidencepresented is susceptible to other inferences is irrelevant (see People v Jessup, 90AD3d at 784). Accordingly, the County Court erred in granting the defendant'sapplication to dismiss the indictment, made on the ground that the evidence presented tothe grand jury was legally insufficient. Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ.,concur.