![]() The Court continued by recognizing that another traditional function of the indictment has been to provide some means of ensuring that the crime for which the defendant is brought to trial is in fact one for which he was indicted by the Grand Jury, rather than some alternative seized upon by the prosecution in light of subsequently discovered evidence. ![]() Achievement of this purpose historically involved both a legal and a factual statement: normally the indictment has been required to both charge all the legally material elements of the crime of which defendant is accused, and state that defendant in fact committed the acts which comprise those elements.” This function of the indictment is founded not upon the right to indictment by a Grand Jury, but rather on the notice requirement of section 6 of article I of our State Constitution and presumably that of the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as well. “First and foremost, an indictment has been considered as the necessary method of providing the defendant with fair notice of the accusations made against him, so that he will be able to prepare a defense. The Court noted that an indictment has traditionally served several purposes. The Court stated in Iannone, “The requirement of indictment by Grand Jury is intended to prevent the people of this State from potentially oppressive excesses by the agents of the government in the exercise of the prosecutorial authority vested in the state (cite omitted).” No particular form is constitutionally mandated. The right to be prosecuted by indictment is guaranteed by section 6 of article 1 of the NY State Constitution. 2d 589 (1978) the Court of Appeals reviewed the history of the use and purpose of indictments. To understand the need for a bill of particulars it helps to first review the history of indictments in New York:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |