Opinion ID: 2070572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grand Jury Instructions on Intoxication

Text: Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on a number of grounds. Among them, he contended that the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was impaired when the People refused to give an instruction on intoxication. [4] The trial court determined that the instruction was not required in this case ( People v Harris, 174 Misc 2d 654, 656). This Court has determined that a prosecutor is not required to present mitigating defenses to a grand jury ( People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38). We have recognized that the question whether a grand jury should be instructed with regard to a particular defense depends upon its potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution. Unlike exculpatory defenses, which may result in a finding of no criminal liability, mitigating defenses only reduce the gravity of the offense committed. Thus, while a grand jury instructed on an exculpatory defense might avoid an unwarranted prosecution, the same result would not follow if the grand jury were instructed on a mitigating defense ( id. ; see also People v Lancaster, 69 NY2d 20, 29). Like a mitigating defense, intoxication merely reduces the gravity of the offense by negating an element. We see no reason to depart from Valles. [5] The People here were not required to instruct the grand jury on intoxication. [6]