People v. Bautista-Hernandez

2021 NY Slip Op 34143(U)

• Court: New York County Court, Westchester County
• Decided: September 30, 2021
• Docket: Ind. No. 21-0390
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Bautista-Hernandez 2021 NY Slip Op 34143(U) September 30, 2021 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Ind. No. 21-0390 Judge: David S. Zuckerman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. •

FILED~ COUNTY COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER OCT 1 3 2021 ----------------------------------x TIMOTHY C. IDONI COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

-against- DECISION & ORDER

YORDANY BAUTISTA-HERNANDEZ, Ind. No.: 21-0390

Defendant. ------------------ --- -------- ---x ZUCKERMAN, J.

Defendant stands accused under Indictment No. 21-0390 of

three counts of Manslaughter in the Second Degree (Penal Law

§125 .15 [l] ) , and three counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide

(Penal Law §125 .10). As set forth in the ·Indictment, it is

alleged that, on or about September 25, 2020, Defendant, in

Westchester _County, New York, recklessly, and with criminal

negligence, c_aused the death of three persons. By Notice of

Motion dated August 30, 2021, wi"th accompanying Affirmation and

Memorandum of Law, Defendant ·moves for omnibus relief. In

response, the People have submitted an Affirmation in.Opposition

with Memorandum of Law dated September 10, 2021.

The moti~ns are d~Jposed of as follows:

& DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION

Defendant' s motion for discovery is granted to the extent

provided for in Criminal Procedure Law Artie.le 245 and/or already

provided by the People. Defendant's motion-for identification of

[* 1] a confidential informant is _denied, as such information is not

discoverable pursuant to CPL §245.20©. If any items set forth in

CPL Article 245 as discoverable have not already been provided to

Defendant pursuant to that Article, said items are to be provided

forthwith. Any party is granted leave, if required, to apply for

a Protective Order in compliance with CPL Article 245, upon

notice to the opposing party and any party affected by said

Protective Order. The People are directed to file a Certificate

. of Compliance with CPL Article 245 and the instant Order upon

completion of their obligations thereunder, if they have not

already done so. The People's cross-motion for reciprocal·

discovery is likewise granted to the extent provided for in

Criminal Procedure Law Article 245, and/or already. provided to

the People. The People are further reminded that any response to

a demand for a bill of particulars by Defendant shall adequately

inform Defendant of the substance of the alleged conduct, and in

all respects comply with CPL Article 245 and §200.95, within 15

days of the date of the request.

In addition, pursuant to Administrative Order 393/19, it is

ORDERED that the District Attorney and the Assistant

District Attorney responsible for the case, are re~ired to make

timely disclosure of information favorable to the defense as

required by Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; Giglio v United

States, 405 US 150 [1972]; People v Geaslen, 54 NY2d 510 [1981];

[* 2] and their progeny under the United States and New York State

Constitutions and by Rule 3.8(b) of the New York State Rules of

Professional Conduct; and it is further

ORDERED, that the District Attorney and· the Assistant

District Attorney responsible for the case or, if the matter is

not being prosecuted by the District Attorney, the prosecuting

agency and its assigned representatives, have a duty to learn of

such favorable information that is known to others acting on the

government's behalf in the case, including the police, and are

therefore expected to confer with investigative and prosecutorial

personnel who acted in the case and to review all files which are

directly related to the. prosecution or investigation of this I case. For purposes of this Order, favorable information can

include but is not'limited to:

a) Information that impeaches the credibility of a

testifying prosecution witness, including (I) benefits, promises,

or inducements, express or tacit, made to a witness.. by a law

enforcement officiai or law enforcement victim services agency in

connection with giving testimony or cooperating in the case;

(ii) a witness's prior inconsistent statements, written or

oral;

(iii) a witness's prior convictions and uncharged criminal

conduct;

(iv) information that tends to show that a witness has a

[* 3] motive to lie to inculpate the defendant, or a bias against

the defendant or in favor of the complainant or the

prosecution; and

(v) information that tends to show impairment of a witness's

ability to perceive, recall, or recount relevant events,

including impairment resulting from mental or physical illn~ss or

substance abuse;

b) Information that tends to exculpate, reduce the degree of

an offense, or support a potential defense to a charged offense;

c) · Information that tends to mitigate the degree of the

defendant's culpability as to a charged offense. or to mitigate

punishment;

d) Information that tends to · undermine evidence of the

defendant's identity as a perpetrator of a charged crime, such· as

a non-identification of the defendant by a witness to a charged

crime or an identification or other evidence implicating another

person in a manner that tends to cast doubt on the defendant's

guilt; and

e) Information that could affect in the defendant's favor

the ultimate decision on a.suppression motion; and it is further

ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant

District Attorney 'responsible for the case or any other agent

prosecuting the case is hereby advised of his/her duty to

disclose favorable information whether or not such information is

[* 4] recorded in tangible form and irrespective of whether the

prosecutor credits the information; and it is further

District Attorney responsible for the case or any other agent

responsible for the prosecution of the case is directed that

favorable information must be timely disclosed in accordance with

the United States and New York State constitutional standards, as

well as CPL Article 245. Disclosures are presumptively "timely"

if they are completed no later than 30 days before commencement

of trial in a felony case and 15 days before commencement of

trial in a misdemeanor case. Records of a judgment of conviction

or a pending_ criminal action ordinarily are discoverable within

the time frame provided in CPL Article 245. Disclosures that

pertain to a suppression hearing are presumptively "timely" if

they are made no later than 15 days before the scheduled hearing

date; and it is further

District Attorney responsible for the case or any other agent

res·ponsible for the prosecution of the case is hereby reminded

and informed that his/her obligation to disclose is a continuing

one; and it is further

ORDERED, notwithstanding the foregoing, that a prosecutor

may apply for a protective order, which may be issued for good

cause, and CPL Article 245 shall be deemed to apply, with respect

[* 5] to· disclosures required under this Order. Moreover, the

prosecutor may request a ruling from the court on the need for

disclosure. Only willful and deliberate conduct will con 9 titute

a violation of this Order or be eligible to result in personal

sanctions against a prosecutor; and it is further

ORDERED, that counsel for the defendant is required to:

a) confer with the defendant about his/her case and is

required to keep the defendant informed about all significant

developments in the case; and

b) timely communicate · any . and all plea offers to the

defendant and to provide him/her with reasonable advice about the

advantages and disadvantages of any such.plea offer including the

potential sentencing ranges that apply in the case; ' c) where applicable, insure the defendant receives competent

advice concerning immigra.tion consequences as required under

Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 [2010] ;_

d) perform a reasonable investigation of the facts and the

law pertinen_t to the case (including, as applicable, visiting the

scene, interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing pertinent materials,

consulting experts; inspecting exhibits, reviewing all discovery

materials obtained from the prosecution, researching legal

issues, etc.) or, as appropriate, making. a reasonable

professional judgment not to investigate a particular matter;

e) comply with the requirements of the New York State Rules

[* 6] of Professional Conduct regarding conflicts of interest, and when

appropriate, timely notify the court of a possible conflict so

that an inquiry may be undertaken or a ruling made;

f) possess or acquire a reasonable knowledge and familiarity

with criminal procedural and evidentiary · 1aw to ensure

constitutionally effective representation in the case; and

g) in accordance with statute, provide notices as specified

in CPL sections 250.10, 250.20 and 250.30, (e.g., a demand,

intent to introduce the evidence, etc.)

!h MOTION FOR A MAPP/DUNAWAY HEARING/TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF A BLOOD TEST

Defendant moves to suppress all physical evidence which the

People seek to introduce against him at trial, including searches

of his vehicle and a phone, a blood seizure, and the results of

the blood test which followed the seizure, alleging that they

were recovered after a search that · was not based on probable

cause, were not consented to, nor conducted pursuant to VTL

§1194. The People, in their Affirmation in Opposition, state

that there was no· impropriety in the searches conducted and

seizures made and add, in particular, that any evidence taken

from Defendant's vehicte and cell phone, and the blood from his

person, were seized pursuant to a search warrant.

The results of a search conducted pursuant to a lawful

search or arrest warrant is not subject to a suppression hearing.·

[* 7] People v .. Arnau, 58 NY2d 27 (1982). The court has reviewed the

affidavits in support of the search (and blood) . warrants, and

finds that they provided the issuing magistrate with ample

probable cause to support issuance of the warrants. Further,

this court reviewed the search orders and finds them to be proper

injall respects. Finally, the court notes that,. according to the

Voluntary Disclosure Form and People's Affirmations filed in this

action, the People have provided defense counsel with access to

the search warrants. I

Regarding the blood seizure and test, the People assert that

Defendant consented to the collection procedure ·of the blood

sample. Consequently, the motion to suppress physical evidence

is granted to the extent that a pre-trial Mapp/Dunaway/VTL §1194

hearing is ordered to determine the propriety of the search and

seizure leading to law enforcement officers obtaining Defednant's

blood and subsequent testing. of same·.

Q_,_ MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT EVIDENCE/FOR A HUNTLEY HEARING

Defendant moves, pursuant to CPL §710.20(3), ·to suppress

noticed statements. The People, in their Affirmation in

Opposition, state that there was no impropriety in gathering the

statements attributable to Defendant, but consent to a hearing on

the issue. Consequently, the motion to suppress noticed

statements is granted, to the extent that a Huntley hearing is

[* 8] orc;lered to determine the propriety of. those statements.

!L_ MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE/FOR A WADE HEARING.

Defendant moves, pursuant to CPL §710. 20 (3), to suppress·

identification evidence. The People, in their Affirmation in

Opposition, state that there was no identification procedure

involving Defendant. Consequently, . the motion to suppress

identification evidence is denied, with leave to renew at such.

time, if any, that the People seek to offer any such evidence.

E. MOTION TO INSPECT THE GRAND JURY MINUTES AND TO DISMISS AND/OR REDUCE THE INDICTMENT

Defendant moves pursuant to CPL §§210. 20 (1) (b) and. (c).to

dismiss the indictment, or counts thereof, on the grounds that

the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient and

that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the meaning

of CPL §210.35. The Court has reviewed the minutes of the

proceedings ?efore the Grand Jury.

Pursuant to CPL §190.65(1), an indictment must be supported

by legally sufficient evidence which establishes that the

defendant committed the offenses charged. . Legally sufficient

evidence is competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would

establish each and every element of the offense charged and the

defendant's commission thereof (CPL §70.10 [1]); People v

Jennings, 69 NY2d 103 [1986]). "In the context of a grand jury

proceeding, legal sufficiency means_ prima facie proof of the

[* 9] crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt." People v

Bello, 92 NY2d 523 (1998); People v Ackies, 79 AD3d 1050 (2 nd

Dept 2010). In rendering a determination, "[t]he reviewing

court's inquiry is limited to wh~ther the facts, if proven, and

the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof

of each element of the charged crimes. and whether the grand jury

could rationally have drawn the inference of guilt." Bello,

supra, quoting People v Boampong, 57 AD3d 794 (2 nd Dept 2008- -

internal quotations omitted) . The court notes that Defendant,

having previously been provided with a transcript of the Grand

Jury proceedings, has not asserted any specific objection

regarding the Grand Jury presentation.

A review of the minutes reveals that the evidence presented,

if accepted as true, would be legally sufficient to establish

every element of the offenses charged (see CPL §210.30[2].

·Accordingly, Defendant's. motion to dismiss or reduce for lack of

sufficient evidence is denied. With respect to Defendant's claim

that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the meaning

of CPL §210. 35, a review of the minutes ·supports a finding that a

quorum of the grand jurors was pre.sent during the presentation of

evidence and . at the time the district attorney instructed the

Grand Jury on the law, that.the grand jurors who voted to indict

heard all the "essential and critical evidence" ( see People v

Collier, 72 NY2d 298 [1988]; People v Julius, 300 ·AD2d 167 [1 st

[* 10] Dept 2002], lv den 99 NY2d 655 (2003]), and that the Grand Jury

was properly instructed (see People v Calbud, 49 NY2d 389 (1980]

and. People v. Valles, 62 NY2d 36 (1984]). In making · this

determination, the Court does not find that release of such

portions of · · the Grand Jury minutes as have not already been

disclosed pursuant to CPL Article 245 to the parties was

necessary to assist the Court.

K.,_ MOTION FOR·SANDOVAL/VENTIMIGLIA/MOLINEUX HEARING

Granted, solely to the extent that

Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux hearings, as the case may be, shall

be held immediately prior to trial, as follows:

A. Pursuant to CPL §245.20, the People must notify the

Defendant, not less than fifteen days prior to the first

scheduled date for trial, of all specific instances of

Defendant's uncharged misconduct and criminal .acts of which the

.People have knowledge and which the People intend to use at trial

for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the Defendant, or

as substantive proof of any material issue in the case,

designating, as the case may_ be for each act or acts, the

intended use (impeachment or substantive proof) for which the act

or acts will be offered; and

B. Defendant, at -the ordered hearing, must then sustain

his burden of Tnforming the Court of the prior misconduct which

might unfairly affect him as a witness in his own behalf (see,

[* 11] People v. Malphurs, 111 AD2d 266 [2 nd Dept. 1985]).

All other motions are denied:

Dated: White Plains, New York September 30, 2021

A.J.S.C.

DARNELL D. CROSSLAND, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant 1200 Summer Street, Suite 202 Stanford, CT 06905

HON. MIRIAM E. ROCAH District Attorney, Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. White Plains, New York 10601 BY: Daniel Flecha, Esq. Assistant District Attorney

[* 12]