In People v Wilkins (68 NY2d 269 [1986]) the prosecutor withdrew a case from the grand jury after presentation of the evidence, but prior to instructing the jurors on the law, and resubmitted it to a second panel without the consent of either the first grand jury or the court that impaneled it. Focusing on the policies underlying section 190.75, which "was enacted in order to curtail the 'grave abuses' resulting from the common-law rule that allowed a prosecutor to resubmit a charge repeatedly to successive Grand Juries after the same charge had been dismissed by their predecessors" (People v Gelman, 93 NY2d 314 [1999]), the Court concluded that, although the People acted in good faith, the withdrawal was equivalent to a dismissal and that the People could not lawfully resubmit the charges without court approval. (Wilkins, 68 NY2d at 271.) The Court of Appeals held that, because the statutory scheme governing grand jury proceedings contemplates that deliberations will not end without some grand jury action, a prosecutor's withdrawal of a case from the grand jury after presentation of the evidence is the equivalent of a dismissal, and therefore triggers the requirement that judicial authorization be obtained before the matter is resubmitted. The Wilkins Court held that under the circumstances set forth above, a prosecutor's withdrawal of a completed case from the grand jury before that body has had an opportunity to vote on the charges is deemed to be the functional equivalent of a rejection of the charges by the grand jury. (People v. Wilkins, 68 NY2d at 275.) The ruling made applicable to the case the requirements of CPL 190.75 (3): "when a charge has been so dismissed, it may not again be submitted to a grand jury unless the court in its discretion authorizes or directs the people to resubmit such charge to the same or another grand jury. If in such case the charge is again dismissed, it may not again be submitted to a grand jury." The Wilkins Court found judicial permission to re-present required to keep the prosecutor from undermining the statutory scheme for grand jury action. The Court noted first, under CPL 190.60 , which lists the actions a grand jury must take, the "comprehensive statutory scheme regulating Grand Jury proceedings [after presentation of a case] does not contemplate the termination of deliberations without some action by the Grand Jury." (Id. at 273.)