Opinion
Indictment No. 17-0757
11-14-2017
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. NEIL WHITE, Defendant.
To: HON. ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, JR. District Attorney, Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard White Plains, New York 10601 BY: James P. Tobin, Esq. Assistant District Attorney CLARE J. DEGNAN, ESQ. The Legal Aid Society of Westchester County 150 Grand Street, Suite 100 White Plains, New York 10601 By: David Rich, Esq. Senior Trial Counsel
DECISION & ORDER
Defendant, Neil White, having been indicted on or about July 25, 2017 for Murder in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) has filed an omnibus motion which consists of a Notice of Motion and an Affirmation in Support. In response, the People have filed an Affirmation in Opposition together with a Memorandum of Law.
Upon consideration of these papers, the stenographic transcript of the grand jury minutes and the Consent Discovery Order entered in this case, this court disposes of this motion as follows: A.
MOTION to INSPECT, DISMISS and/or REDUCE
CPL ARTICLE 190
The court grants the defendant's motion to the limited extent that the court has conducted an in camera inspection of the stenographic transcription of the grand jury proceedings. Upon such review, the court finds no basis upon which to grant defendant's application to dismiss or reduce the indictment. Defendant's request to dismiss the indictment in the interests of justice is denied.
The indictment contains a plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof with sufficient precision as to clearly apprise the defendant of the conduct which is the subject of the indictment (CPL 200.50). The indictment charges each and every element of the crimes, and alleges that the defendant committed the acts which constitute the crimes at a specified place during a specified time period and, therefore, is sufficient on its face (People v Cohen, 52 NY2d 584 [1981]; People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589 [1978]).
The grand jury was properly instructed (see People v Calbud, 49 NY2d 389 [1980]; People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36 [1984]; People v Burch, 108 AD3d 679 [2d Dept 2013]). The evidence presented, if accepted as true, is legally sufficient to establish every element of each offense charged (CPL 210.30[2]). "Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence—would warrant conviction" (People v Mills, 1 NY3d 269, 274-275 [2002]). Legally sufficient evidence means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof (CPL 70.10[1]; see People v Flowers, 138 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2d Dept 2016]). "In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Jessup, 90 AD3d 782, 783 [2d Dept 2011]). "The reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes, and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference. That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference" (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998]).
Additionally, the minutes reveal a quorum of the grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence, that the Assistant District Attorney properly instructed the grand jury on the law, and only permitted those grand jurors who heard all the evidence to vote the matter. B.-D.
MOTION for DISCOVERY, DISCLOSURE and INSPECTION
CPL ARTICLE 240
The parties have entered into a stipulation by way of a Consent Discovery Order consenting to the enumerated discovery in this case. Defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent provided for in Criminal Procedure Law Article 240. If there any further items discoverable pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Article 240 which have not been provided to defendant pursuant to the Consent Discovery Order, they are to be provided forthwith.
As to the defendant's demand for exculpatory material, the People have acknowledged their continuing duty to disclose exculpatory material at the earliest possible date upon its discovery (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 [1972]). The People have also acknowledged their duty to comply with People v Rosario, (9 NY2d 286 [1961]). In the event that the People are or become aware of any material which is arguably exculpatory and they are not willing to consent to its disclosure to the defendant, they are directed to immediately disclose such material to the Court to permit an in camera inspection and determination as to whether such must be disclosed to the defendant.
Notably, the People have a continuing duty to disclose the terms of any deal or agreement made between the People and any prosecution witness at the earliest possible date (see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1 [1993]; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 [1972]; Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; People v Wooley, 200 AD2d 644 [2d Dept 1994]).
As to the defendant's demand for scientific related discovery, the People have acknowledged their continuing duty to disclose any written report or document concerning a physical or mental examination or test that the People intend to introduce, or the person who created them, at trial pursuant to CPL 240.20 (1)(c).
Defendant's motion for a further Bill of Particulars is denied. The Bill of Particulars set forth in the Consent Discovery Order provided to the defendant has adequately informed the defendant of the substance of his alleged conduct and in all respects complies with CPL 200.95.
Except to the extent that the defendant's application has been specifically granted herein, it is otherwise denied as seeking material or information beyond the scope of discovery (see People v Colavito, 87 NY2d 423 [1996]; Matter of Brown v Grosso, 285 AD2d 642 [2d Dept 2001]; Matter of Brown v Appelman, 241 AD2d 279 [2d Dept 1998]; Matter of Catterson v Jones, 229 AD2d 435 [2d Dept 1996]; Matter of Catterson v Rohl, 202 AD2d 420 [2d Dept 1994]). E.
MOTION to SUPPRESS NOTICED STATEMENTS
This branch of the defendant's motion seeking to suppress statements on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally obtained is granted to the extent that a Huntley hearing shall be held prior to trial to determine whether any statements allegedly made by the defendant, which have been noticed by the People pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1)(a), were involuntarily made by the defendant within the meaning of CPL 60.45 (see CPL 710.20 (3); CPL 710.60[3][b]; People v Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012 [1980]), obtained in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and/or obtained in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (see Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]).
The People have acknowledged their obligation under CPL 710.30 if the People intend to serve a statement (or identification) notice after the statutory period. F.
MOTION to CONTROVERT SEARCH WARRANTS and
SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Defendant moves to controvert the search warrant related to the premises at 3 Arbor Glen, New Rochelle, New York and the Black Lexus 460 located at the premises and to suppress the evidence that was obtained as a result. With respect to property seized pursuant to the search warrant, the motion to suppress is summarily denied since sufficient probable cause was established within the four corners of the warrant to justify the issuance of the warrant (Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154 [1978]). The court has reviewed the affidavit in support of the search warrant and finds that it did. provide the signing magistrate with probable cause to believe that evidence tended to demonstrate that the offense was committed and that the evidence could be located at the locations (the house and the car) described in the warrant. The defendant has failed to make the necessary showing that the warrant was based upon an affidavit containing false statements made knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth (People v McGeachy, 74 AD3d 989 [2d Dept 2010]). The warrant application was accompanied by an affidavit of a detective demonstrating probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime was contained within the premises and the car. The Court has also reviewed the order and return and finds them to be proper in all respects.
Defendant moves to controvert the search warrant related to the search and seizure of blood samples and urine samples taken by Montefiore New Rochelle Hospital and in the custody of the New Rochelle Police Department. Upon the review of the four corners of the search warrant affidavit, which has been provided to the defendant, the Court finds that the warrant for the seizure of defendant's blood and urine samples was adequately supported by probable cause (see People v Keves, 291 AD2d 571 [2d Dept 2002]; see generally People v Badilla, 130 AD3d 744 [2d Dept 2015]; People v Elysee, 49 AD3d 33 [2d Dept 2007]). The warrant affidavit in support provides information that demonstrated probable cause to believe that samples could tend to show that the offense was committed and that the samples were located as described in the warrant. The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the warrant was based upon an affidavit containing false statements made knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth (People v McGeachy, 74 AD3d 989 [2d Dept 2010]). To the extent that defendant moves to controvert the warrant on the basis that no return thereon was filed, as ths court does not see a return contained within the submissions, the motion is denied as the return and inventory under a search warrant are ministerial acts and the failure to perform such acts do not void an otherwise validly issued warrant (see People v Morgan, 162 AD2d 723 [2d Dept 1990]). Thus, the defendant's motion is denied.
To the extent that there was any other evidence recovered from defendant's person upon his arrest, that branch of the defendant's motion is granted solely to the extent of conducting a Mapp hearing prior to trial to determine the propriety of any search resulting in the seizure of property (see Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643[1961]). The hearing will also address whether any evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (see Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]). G.
MOTION for SANDOVAL and VENTIMIGLIA HEARINGS
Defendant has moved for a pre-trial hearing to permit the trial court to determine the extent, if at all, to which the People may inquire into the defendant's prior criminal convictions, prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct. The People have consented to a Sandoval hearing. Accordingly, it is ordered that immediately prior to trial a hearing shall be conducted pursuant to People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371 [1974]). At said hearing, the People shall be required to notify the defendant of all specific instances of his criminal, prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct of which they have knowledge and which they intend to use in an attempt to impeach the defendant's credibility if he elects to testify at trial (CPL 240.43).
At the hearing, the defendant shall bear the burden of identifying any instances of his prior misconduct that he submits the People should not be permitted to use to impeach his credibility. The defendant shall be required to identify the basis of his belief that each event or incident may be unduly prejudicial to his ability to testify as a witness on his own behalf (see People v Matthews, 68 NY2d 118 [1986]; People v Malphurs, 111 AD2d 266 [2d Dept 1985]).
Defendant's application for a hearing, pursuant to People v Ventimiglia (52 NY2d 350 [1981]) is denied since the People have not indicated an intention to use evidence of any prior bad act or uncharged crimes of the defendant during its case in chief (see People v Molineaux, 168 NY2d 264 [1901]). If the People move to introduce such evidence, the defendant may renew this aspect of his motion. H.
MOTION to STRIKE ALIBI NOTICE
Defendant's motion to strike the alibi notice is denied. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, it is well-settled that CPL 250.00 is indeed in compliance with the constitutional requirements (see People v Dawson, 185 AD2d 854 [2d Dept 1992]; People v Cruz, 176 AD2d 751 [2d Dept 1991]; People v Gill, 164 AD2d 867 [2d Dept 1990]) and provides equality in the required disclosure (People v Peterson, 96 AD2d 871 [2d Dept 1983]; see generally Wardius v Oregon, 412 US 470 [1973]).
The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this court. Dated: White Plains, New York
November 14, 2017
/s/_________
Honorable Anne E. Minihan
Westchester County Court Judge To:
HON. ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, JR.
District Attorney, Westchester County
111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
White Plains, New York 10601
BY: James P. Tobin, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
CLARE J. DEGNAN, ESQ.
The Legal Aid Society of Westchester County
150 Grand Street, Suite 100
White Plains, New York 10601
By: David Rich, Esq.
Senior Trial Counsel