People v. Torres

2021 NY Slip Op 34284(U)

• Court: New York County Court, Westchester County
• Decided: May 27, 2021
• Docket: Index No. 70006/2021
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Helen M. Blackwood

Opinion

People v Torres 2021 NY Slip Op 34284(U) May 27, 2021 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Index No. 70006/2021 Judge: Helen M. Blackwood 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. · COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHES TER ---------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE. STATE OF NEW YORK DECISION and ORDER

-against- . Indictment No.: 7~006{ ~/I . MATHEW TORRES, .. J c..,,~~ ,I A./4 ~v· Defendant . . . _1)~ r <8 ' -----------------------------------------------------,-------"X . . '1,~'J!:g.,~°:,/ MATHEW TORRES ("defendant") has been indicted for the crimes of manslaugli t~fg.~ 'I . . . ' ~~8Jj · . the first degree pursuant to section 125.20(1) of the Penal Law ("PL") and assault in the first ~

degree pursuant to PL §120.10(1). The defendant has filed a notice of motion and supporting

affirmation seeking omnibus relief. The People have responded by filing a cross-motion seeking

. to strike portions of the attachments to the defendant's motion, as well as an affirmation in

opposition to the defendant's motion and a memorandum of law. The defendant filed an

affirmation in reply. Upon consideration of the aforementioned submissions, along with a

review of the grand jury minutes and exhibits, as well as the indictment and attached notices, the •

motion is disposed of as follows:

I. Motion to Inspect, Dismiss, and Reduce

The People have provided the grand jury minutes to the court and the court has reviewed·

those minutes in camera. After doing so, the court finds that there is no basis to dismiss or

reduce any charges of the indictment. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to d.o so is denied in

all respects.

The court finds that the evidence offered to the grand jury was legally sufficient in

accordance with section 70.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL"). "Legally sufficient

[* 1] 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]). Moreover,

"Ic]ourts 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 N.Y.3d 269 [2003], quoting People v. Carroll, 93 N.Y.2d 564 [1999]; see also People v.

Wisey, 133 A.D.3d 799 [2015]). The court finds that the evidence presented to the grand jury, in

its entirety, met this burden.

Additio~ally, the court finds that the grand jury was properly instructed as the law ( see

j People v. Calbud, 49 N.Y.2d 398 [1980]) and that a quorum was present. Moreover, a review of

the grand jury minutes indicates that nothing during the proceedings rises to the level of an

"impairment of integrity" ,of those proceedings (see People v. Darby, 75 N.Y.2d 449,455

[1990]). As to the defendant's claim that the People failed to call certain witnesses to testify ·and·

present certain exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, the court notes that the People are under

no obligation to do so (see People v. Mitchell, 82 N.Y.2d 509 [1993]). Moreover, without

compromising the secrecy accorded to the grand jury proceeding, the court notes that the I prosecutor, in fact, called to testi_fy a variety of witnesses, including those that, based upon the

circumstances, could be viewed as defense witnesses.

Finally, the court finds that the release of the grand jury minutes or any portion thereof to

the defendant is unnecessary since the defendant has not set forth any compelling or

particularized need for the production of the grand jury minutes. Therefore, the defendant's

application for the release of said minutes is denied (see CPL 190.25[4][a]).

[* 2] II. Motion to Suppress Statements

The defendant moves to suppress pis noticed statements on the grounds that they were

obtained in violation of his rights as protected by the fourth and fifth amendments. ·Specifically,

he argues that the statements were made after he was arrested without probable cause. and were

made involuntarily and the product of coercion. In response, the People claim that the

statements were made voluntarily, and consent to a hearing on the issue.

The defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a hearing will be held to determine

whether the police possessed the requisite probable cause to seize the defendant (see, Dunaway

v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 [1979]) and a Huntley hearing shall·be held to determine whether tlie

statements allegedly made by the defendant, which have been noticed by the People pursuant to

CPL 710.30(1)(a), were made involuntarily within the meaning of CPL 60.45 (see, CPL

710.20[3];CPL 710.60[3][b]; People v. Weaver, 49 N.Y.2d 1012 [1980]).

III. Motion to Suppress Identification

The defendant moves to suppress any testimony regarding an in-court observation of the

defendant on the grounds that the identification procedure noticed to the defendant pursuant to

CPL 710.30(1)(b) was unduly suggestive. In response, the People consent to a hearing and I

submit that neither the photographic array shown to the witness, nor the procedure in which it

was used, were unduly suggestive, and that in any event, the witness had an independent basis • I

for identifying the defendant based upon his opportunity to observe the defendant before and

·during the crime.

The defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a hearing is ordered prior to trial to

determine whether or not the noticed identification procedure was conducted in an unduly

suggestive manner so as to render any in-court identification tainted (see, United States v. Wade,

[* 3] 388 U.S.218 [1926]). Should the hearing court determine that the identification procedure was

so suggestive, then the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether or not there was an

independent source for the witness' in-court identification (see, People v; Perkins, 28 N.Y.3d 432

[2016]).

IV. Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence

The defendant moves to suppress any property recovered from his person at the time of

his arrest, specifically his clothing, and any resulting "fruits of the poisonous tree," alleging that

the police did not have sufficient probable cause to arre.st him and seize his property.

The defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a hearing will be held to determine

whether the police seized the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights (see Point

II, supra) and whether the search and seizure of the defendant's property af the time of his arrest

was lawful (see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [1961]).

Asto the defendant's motion to suppress the defendant's "arrest".and dismiss the.

indictment "for want of probable cause," his requested relief is denied.

V. Motion for Discovery and Inspection and to Strike the People's Certificate of

Compliance

Defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent provided for in Criminal

Procedure Law Article 245 and/or already provided by the People. If any items set forth in CPL

Article 245 have not already been provided to the defendant pursuant to that Article, said items .

are to be provided forthwith.

As to the Defendant's complaint that he has not been provided with the Grand Jury

testimony or the curriculum vitae or list of publications for Dr. Benjamin Bristol, the People note

[* 4] in their response that they have, since the defendant's motion was filed, provided those

documents via the discovery portal. Hence, the issue is moot.

. With regard to the defendant's allegation that he has not received all reports relating to

laboratory testing, the Peopl~ claim to have turned over everything so far in existence: Notably,

the People are instructed to turn over any additional reports, tests, or notes as they become

available in according with CPL 245.20(1)G).

Similarly, the defendant assumes, without explanation, that the People are in violation of

CPL 245.20(1)(1). T~e court has no reason to believe such is true, but nevertheless reminds the.

People to comply with the statute and tum ·over any information regarding any promises,

rewards, or inducements made to any witnesses in exchange for their testimony.

Finally, with respect to the defendant's contention that the Peop_le' s disclosure of CPL

· 245.20(1)(k) discovery for law enforcement witnesses is incomplete, the People represent that

they have complied with all they are required to comply with per CPL 245.20(1)(k).

Specifically, the People state that they have presented certain questions to each of the police

officers involved in this case and when one of the officers answered in the affirmative, they

turned over the relevant information. The defendant does nothing more than speculate that the

People have violated CPL 245.20(1)(k) because he does not have "lk" information for each of

the relevant officers, nor does he have the actual questionnaires. The claim that there must be lk

information for each and every officer involved in this prosecution is wholly unsupported by any

good faith allegation by the defendant. Additionally, the court notes that there is nothing in the ·

statute that requires the People to turn over the questionnaires to the defendant, despite his

protestations. Finally, the People acknowledge that although PO Joseph Gorman originally

declined to answer one of the questions in· the questionnaire, he later answered "no" when asked

[* 5] ifhe was aware of any complaiJ).ts pending against him. Now that that question has been

answered, the People have fulfilled their obligation (see Matter of Certain Police Officers, 67

Misc3d 458 [Westchester County Court, Blackwood, J. February 21; 2020]). Finally, if the

defendant feels as though there is something that the People have not disclosed with respect to

their police witnesses, with the repeal of New York Civil Rights Law section 50-a, the defendant

has as much ability to get those records from the police as the People do. Should the defendant

obtain such records and a review of them reveals a discrepancy between what was disclosed by

the People and what actually exists, the court will_ impose the appropriate sanctions. To the

extent the defendant requests that the court preclude any police witness from testifying at trial

due to an-alleged failure on the part of the People to comply with CPL 245.20(1)(k), such relief

is denied.

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]): 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 the material must be disclosed to the defendant.

Finally, the Court finds that the People are in compliance with their discovery obligations

and that the Certificate of Compliance that has already been filed is valid. The defendant _has

made no showing that it should be stricken.

VI. Motion for a .Sandoval and Ventimiglia Hearing

The defendant moves to preclude the People from cross-examining him regarding any

[* 6] of his prior convictions and/or bad acts should he choose to testify. In the alternative, the

defendant requests a hearing on the issue.

The defendant's motion is granted to the extent the People are ordered to disclose to the

defendant all specific instances of his prior convictions, uncharged crimes and bad acts they

expeci to introduce at trial for impeachment purposes, or as direct proof, in accordance with CPL

-245.20(3), if they have not already done so. At a hearing immediately before jury selection, the

defendant must sustain his burden of showing the prior convictions and _bad acts

which will unduly prejudice him as a witness on his own behalf (People v. Matthews, 68 N.Y.2d.

118 [1986]).

Additionally, in the event that the People seek to use any such conduct in their direct case

against the defendant, they are ordered to request a hearing to determine the admissibility of . . such evidence pursuant to People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350 (1981).

VIL Motion to Controvert Search Warrant and to Suppress Physical Evidence

The defendant mqves to controvert the search warrant issued in this case, contending that

·it was unsupported by probable cause and, specifically, fails to link the tan Apple iPhone to the

d~fendant. Hence, he argues, all of the property seized as a result-of the warrant should be

suppressed.

The court has been provided with the warrant to search Apartment 1 of 149 South Street,

Peekskill, New York, a Gray Acura ILX, and a tan Apple iPhone, and.its supporting affidavit and

has reviewed them both in camera. After such review, the court finds that as to the search of the

apartment and the vehicle, the order was issued in accordance with section 690 of the Criminal

Procedure Law and is supported by probable cause. Furthermore, the court finds that both

. prongs of the Aguilar-Spin elli test were satisfied by the information contained in the supporting

[* 7] affidavit (see Aguilar v.Texas, 378 U.S.108 [1964]; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410

[1969]; see also People v. Divine, 147 A.D.3d 1082 [2017]). Therefore, the motion to suppress

any evidence recovered from the apartment. or the vehicle as a result of the warrant is denied.

As for the search warrant as it pertains to the search of the phone, the court agrees with

the defendant that the warrant lacks any information connecting the phone to the defendant or

regarding how and when the phone was recovered. The People concede that the detective that ·

drafted the warrant and affidavit was under the mistaken belief that the phone was recovered

from the defendant's person, when actually, the phone was recovered from a vehicle driven by

and owned by someone other than the defendant, who consented to the search of the vehicle.

The court has no reason to believe, and has been provided with no evidence to support the

defendant's allegation that the detective that drafted the warrant intentionally lied regarding the

recovery of the phone.

In any event, the Court orders, and the People consent to, a hearing to determine the

specific circumstances surrounding the recovery of the phone and whether it was pursuant to a

lawfully obtained consent to search. Moreover; the hearing will determine whether or not the

defendant abandoned the phone and thereby, has no standing to now contest its seizure and

search (see People v. Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99 [1996]).

VIII. Motion for Additional Bill of Particulars

The defendant's motion for an additional Bill of Particulars pursuant to CPL 200.95[2] is

denied as unnecessary' given the information provided in the existing bill of particulars, as well

as the amount of discovery that has been provided to the defendant.

[* 8] IX. Motion to Reserve the Right to Make Additional Motions

The motion is denied. Should the defendant bring further motions for omnibus relief, \

he must do so by way of an order to show cause setting forth the reasons why his motion was

not and could not be brought in accordance with CPL §255.20.

X.. People's Cross Motion to Strike Attachments to J:?efendant's Motion

The People have filed a cross motion seeking for the court to strike attachments to the

defendant's motion. Specifically, the People point out that the exhibits attached to the

defendant's motion that pertain to information disclosed in accordance with CPL 245.20(1)(k),

as well as grand jury testimony, were filed under seal by the People. Accordingly, the cross-

motion is granted and the aforemention ed attachments will pe stricken and not included in the

court file accessible to the public.

The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of this court.

Dated: White Plains, New York May 27, 2021

HON. HELEN M. BLACKWOO D Westchester County Court

TO: MIRIAM ROCAH •District Attorney Westchester County District Attorney's Office 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. White Plains, New York Attn: ADA Craig Ascher

JOHN A. RAIMONDO , ESQ. Attorney for the Defendant 5 Old Road Elmsford, New York 10523

[* 9] /