People v. Jackson

81 Misc.3d 1062

201 N.Y.S.3d 633

The PEOPLE of The State of New York,

v.John JACKSON, Defendant.

Docket No. CR-010556-23BX

Criminal Court, City of New York, Bronx County.

Decided on November 17, 2023

For the People: Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx County, (by David Berris, Esq.)

For the Defendant: The Bronx Defenders, (by William John, Esq.)

Matthew Bondy, J.

Defendant's substantive omnibus motion raises the distinction between the People's disclosure obligations for fact and testifying expert witnesses under §§ 245.20(1)(c) and (f). The court explains herein why the People's designation of a DMV witness as an expert was proper in this case. In doing so, the court attempts to remedy any confusion regarding the difference between fact and expert witnesses and the trial court's discretion to qualify an expert witness.

This decision also addresses, and rejects, the People's argument that a recent decision from the Fourth Department allows the People only to disclose impeachment material that relates to the subject matter of the case. The court instead continues to follow guidance from the First Department regarding the disclosure of impeachment materials. This guidance leads the court to hold that the People must produce underlying disciplinary records for substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints, without restriction as to the subject matter.

Defendant brought this motion seeking five enumerated requests for relief:

1. Invalidating the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC") and Statement of Readiness pursuant to CPL § 245.50(3) ;

2. Issuing sanctions pursuant to CPL § 245.70(2) because the People have prejudiced defendant's ability to prepare for hearings and trial;

3. Compelling the People to produce additional discovery pursuant to CPL § 245.35(4) ;

4. Suppressing any and all statements taken from defendant for which the People served proper notice pursuant to CPL § 710.30, or in the alternative, granting a Huntley/Dunaway hearing; and,

5. Precluding the People from introducing at trial any evidence of defendant's prior convictions or bad acts pursuant to Sandoval/Ventimiglia.

Upon review and consideration of the parties’ submissions, court file, and relevant law, the court rules as follows:

• Defendant's motions to invalidate the People's COC and Statement of Readiness, to issue sanctions, and to compel the People to produce additional discovery, are DENIED. However, the court orders the following:

- The People shall disclose unredacted IAB logs to defendant on or before December 5, 2023 .

- The court will allow defendant sufficient time to review any unredacted IAB logs before trial.

• The court refers defendant's suppression and preclusion motions to the trial court but GRANTS the following hearings before trial:

- Huntley/Dunaway ;

- Ventimiglia/Sandoval.

Procedural History and Timeline of the People's Disclosures

Defendant was arrested on May 3, 2023, issued a Desk Appearance Ticket, and charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle ( VTL § 511[1][a] ) and violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law ( VTL § 509[1] ). On May 23, 2023, Defendant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty to the charges, and released on his own recognizance.

The People filed a supporting deposition on June 12, 2023. On June 27, 2023, the People filed and served their COC, Notice of Readiness, and Automatic Disclosure Form. On August 7, 2023, the parties each submitted a letter to the court regarding discovery disputes. At an August 15, 2023 discovery conference, the parties reached an impasse regarding discovery issues and requested a motion schedule. Defendant filed his motion on September 6, 2023, the People filed their opposition on September 25, 2023, and defendant filed his reply on October 17, 2023.

Discussion

I. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the People's COC

A. The Legal Standards

The People's compliance with their discovery obligations is tied to the running of the speedy trial clock under CPL § 30.30. "The People ‘shall not be deemed ready for trial’ under CPL 30.30 until they have filed ‘a proper certificate’ " [of compliance] under CPL 245.50(1) ( CPL 245.50[3] ). ( People v. Edwards , 74 Misc.3d 433, 437, 160 N.Y.S.3d 532 [Crim. Ct., N.Y. County 2021] ).

A challenge to a statement of trial readiness requires an inquiry into "whether the People have done all that is required of them to bring the case to a point to where it may be tried." ( People v. England , 84 N.Y.2d 1, 4, 613 N.Y.S.2d 854, 636 N.E.2d 1387 [1994] ). "A statement of readiness at a time when the People are not actually ready is illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock." ( Id. ).

For the misdemeanor offenses at issue herein, pursuant to CPL § 30.30(1)(b), the prosecution must be ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the action. Whether the People have satisfied their obligation is determined by "computing the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and the People's declaration of readiness, subtracting any periods of delay that are excludable under the terms of the statute and then adding to the result any postreadiness periods of delay that are actually attributable to the People and are ineligible for an exclusion." ( People v. Cortes , 80 N.Y.2d 201, 208, 590 N.Y.S.2d 9, 604 N.E.2d 71 [1992] ).

A valid COC is one that was "filed in good faith and [is] reasonable under the circumstances." ( CPL§ 245.50[1] ). "If any known discoverable materials were not exchanged prior to the filing of the COC, the prosecution must demonstrate how due diligence was exercised with regard to those items not exchanged. They must detail the reasonable inquiries made to obtain these discoverable materials." ( People v. Perez , 75 Misc.3d 1205(A), at *3, 2022 WL 1494658 [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2022] ).

CPL § 245.20(1) requires prosecutors to disclose to the defendant "all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction and control." The statute sets forth a non-exhaustive list of materials subject to disclosure. CPL § 245.20(2), on the other hand, addresses the disclosures of items and information that are not in the prosecution's possession, custody or control and states in part that the prosecution "shall make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under subdivision one of this section and to cause such material or information to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody or control; provided that the prosecutor shall not be required to obtain by subpoena duces tecum material or information which the defendant may thereby obtain." This subsection further states, "For purposes of subdivision one of this section, all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution."

CPL § 245.55(1) mandates that a "flow of information [be] maintained between the police and other investigative personnel and his or her office sufficient to place within his or her possession or control all material and information pertinent to the defendant and the offense or offenses charged," including discoverable evidence or information under CPL § 245.20(1)(k).

The required contents of a COC may be found in CPL § 245.50(1) :

When the prosecution has provided the discovery required by subdivision one of section 245.20 of this article ... it shall serve upon the defendant and file with the court a certificate of compliance. The certificate of compliance shall state that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery. It shall also identify the items provided ( § 245.50[1] ).

The last sentence of CPL § 245.50(1) states, "No adverse consequence to the prosecution or the prosecutor shall result from the filing of a certificate of compliance in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances; but the court may grant a remedy or sanction for a discovery violation as provided in section 245.80 of this article." Furthermore, "The drastic remedy of eve-of-trial CPL § 30.30 dismissal for after-the-fact COC invalidity should be the exception, not the rule, and should be imposed only in the case of prosecutorial bad faith or unreasonable inaction[.]" ( People v. Marin , 74 Misc.3d 1037, 1047, 163 N.Y.S.3d 774 [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2022] ).

The parties have a continuing duty to disclose under CPL § 245.60. If additional discovery is provided prior to trial pursuant to § 245.60, CPL §§ 245.50(1) and (2) require the parties to serve and file a supplemental certificate of compliance:

Any supplemental certificate of compliance shall detail the basis for the delayed disclosure so that the court may determine whether the delayed disclosure impacts the propriety of the certificate of compliance. The filing of a supplemental certificate of compliance shall not impact the validity of the original certificate of compliance if filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence pursuant to section 245.20 of this article, or if the additional discovery did not exist the time of the filing of the original certificate of compliance ( CPL § 245.50[1-a] ).

CPL § 245.10 contains a timeline for the automatic disclosures under § 245.20.

Untimely disclosures, however, do not necessarily invalidate a COC that was made in good faith after the exercise of due diligence:

As the legislative history of article 245 indicates, and as the article's sanctions and remedies provisions suggest, the new discovery law, designed as it was to be remedial in nature, should

...