People v. Jackson

Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · 2025 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawDismissal in furtherance of justiceCPL 210.40CPL 210.40furtherance of justicedismissal of indictmentsparingly exercisedcompelling factor

Facts

A grand jury indicted the defendant on charges of attempted rape in the first degree, attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree. After indictment, the defendant moved pursuant to CPL 210.40(1) to dismiss the indictment in the furtherance of justice. The County Court granted that motion. The appellate issue concerned whether dismissal in furtherance of justice was proper on this record.

Issue

Did the County Court properly dismiss the indictment under CPL 210.40(1) in the furtherance of justice? More specifically, did the record show a compelling factor, consideration, or circumstance clearly demonstrating that prosecution or conviction would result in injustice?

Rule

The power to dismiss an indictment in the furtherance of justice must be exercised sparingly and only in cases where some compelling factor, consideration, or circumstance clearly demonstrates that conviction or prosecution on the indictment would constitute or result in injustice. A court may not use CPL 210.40 to substitute its own judgment for the jury's regarding the strength of the People's case, and a pretrial CPL 210.40 motion is not the proper vehicle to dismiss an indictment based on a belief that the defendant was not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Brooklyn, a grand jury indicts Damon Cruz for robbery and assault. Before trial, the judge reviews witness statements, concludes the complainant seems inconsistent, and dismisses the indictment under CPL 210.40 because the prosecution's proof appears too weak to justify a conviction.

Which is the best assessment of the dismissal?

Explanation. The majority held that dismissal in furtherance of justice must be exercised sparingly and not as a means for the court to substitute its own judgment concerning the strength of the People's case for that of the jury. Here, the judge dismissed because he thought the proof was weak, which is precisely the improper use of CPL 210.40 identified by the case. (Derived from People v. Jackson (n.d.).)