Justice Richard Meyer
Hardy was previously charged with criminal possession of marijuana based on a search of his apartment, but the indictment was dismissed as the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient. The court found the evidence was insufficient to establish Hardy knowingly possessed more than 16 ounces of a substance containing marijuana based on “constructive possession.” Prosecutors now sought leave to resubmit the charge to another grand jury under Criminal Procedure Law §210.20(4). However, the court stated no information was provided to support the motion relative to any additional evidence that was to be submitted to another grand jury should the application be granted. It found the papers merely recited that Hardy moved to dismiss the prior indictment, which the prosecutors opposed, but the indictment was dismissed with leave to apply for authorization to resubmit the charges. Yet, the court ruled as no facts were presented upon which the court could justifiably exercise its discretion to grant prosecutors’ motion for leave to resubmit the charge to the grand jury, the application must be denied. It granted prosecutors 10 days to renew their petition on proper papers, but on failure to so renew, the charge would be dismissed with prejudice.
