People v. McDonald

81 Misc.3d 1231 (A)

201 N.Y.S.3d 925 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York,

v.Renee MCDONALD, Defendant.

Docket No. CR-001749-23BX

Criminal Court, City of New York, Bronx County.

Decided on January 18, 2024

Yadhira González- Taylor, J.

By notice of omnibus motion dated October 20, 2023, defendant moved, inter alia , for dismissal of the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 255.20, 245.50 (1) and (3), 170.30 (e), 30.20 and 30.30 ("Docket No.: Docket No.: CR-001749-23BX", the "January arrest"). Specifically, defendant asserts that dismissal is warranted where the prosecution failed to comply with their disclosure obligations pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) prior to filing their Certificate of Compliance ("CoC") and Statement of Readiness ("SoR"). Defense counsel further argues that the case must be dismissed if the People are charged with the period of their non-compliance. The People opposed the motion on December 4, 2023. By notice of omnibus motion also dated October 20, 2023, defense counsel moved on the same statutory grounds to dismiss a companion case following defendant's violation of the Temporary Order of Protection granted to the complaining witness on January 24, 2023 (Docket No.: CR-002921-23BX, the "February arrest"). The People did not oppose the motion to dismiss this docket, nor did they acknowledge the companion case in their opposition papers.

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the People failed to exercise good faith and due diligence in the discharge of their discovery duties and, thus:

The People's CoCs filed on April 24, 2023, at 9:33 pm and 10:01 pm (Docket No.: CR-001749-23BX) and on May 8, 2023 (Docket No.: CR-002921-23BX), are deemed INVALID and ILLUSORY; and Dismissal pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (e), 30.20 and 30.30 is GRANTED for both Docket No.: CR-001749-23BX and Docket No.: CR-002921-23BX.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant Renee McDonald was arrested on January 23, 2023 (the January arrest) and charged with one count each of Penal Law ("PL") § 120.14 (1) (menacing in the second degree), a misdemeanor, and PL § 240.26 (1) (harassment in the second degree), a violation. Ms. McDonald was arraigned the following day and released on her own recognizance.

On February 6, 2023 (the February arrest), defendant was arrested and charged with one count each of PL § 215.50 (3) (criminal contempt in the second degree), PL § 145.00 (1) (criminal mischief in the fourth degree) and PL § 120.15 (menacing in the third degree). Defendant was arraigned on February 7, 2023, and released under supervision.

On April 24, 2023, the People filed their CoC and SoR at 9:22 pm and their supplemental CoC and supplemental SoR at 10:01 pm for the January arrest.

At a discovery conference held on June 2, 2023, Bronx Defenders was relieved as counsel, and Attorney Escobedo was assigned as 18-b counsel.

At the conference held on June 7, 2023, the court confirmed that the People had filed their CoC and SoR concerning the February arrest off-calendar on May 8, 2023. However, a bench warrant was ordered because defendant did not appear. On June 14, 2023, defendant returned to court, and the dockets were adjourned for a discovery conference on August 2, 2023. At a subsequent discovery conference held on September 15, 2023, defense counsel requested a motion schedule.

DISCUSSION

I. The Parties' Arguments ¹

Initially, defense counsel submits that the People's CoC and supplemental CoC should be deemed invalid because they were filed after court operations had closed for the day (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 4). Counsel further claims that of the seven officers identified by the People as having relevant evidence concerning any charged offense, the defense has only received partial disclosure regarding two officers named as testifying witnesses (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 7). Specifically, counsel avers that the prosecution provided summary letters concerning two IAB allegations against Police Officer ("PO") Alvarado-Mota and one IAB case against PO DeJesus (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 7-8). Defendant also asserts that other than a redacted three-page Internal Case Management System Worksheet concerning the IAB case against PO DeJesus, the People did not disclose underlying Giglio documents nor any discoverable materials from NYPD Legal or the Central Personnel Index ("CPI") for PO Alvarado-Mota (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 7-8). Counsel asserts that no further CCRB information was exchanged beyond records dated October 13, 2020 (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 10). Counsel also argues that the People were obligated to disclose Giglio information concerning PO Kelly and Sergeant ("Sgt.") Espinosa, although neither was named as a testifying witness (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 12).

Defendant seeks Giglio disclosure concerning all involved officers, whether the claims are substantiated, unsubstantiated, or exonerated, and including underlying documents (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 13). Defense maintains that the prosecution has failed to diligently discharge its disclosure obligation regarding items enumerated in CPL § 245.20 (1) and, thus, the People's CoC was illusory and did not stop their speedy trial time from accruing (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 13-15). Counsel seeks an order suppressing statement evidence or, alternatively, a Huntley hearing (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 5). Counsel maintains that the prosecution must be deemed untimely pursuant to CPL § 170.30 (e), § 30.20, and § 30.30 if the People are charged with the period of their non-compliance (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 15). Lastly, defendant seeks suppression of any evidence of her prior criminal history or bad acts or, alternatively, a hearing pursuant to Sandoval/Molineux/Ventimiglia (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 17).

Initially, the People argue their CoC filings were valid because the prosecution is not required to disclose the entire personnel file for its testifying officers (People's affirmation at 5). The People further maintain that they have complied with their Giglio disclosure obligations because they provided defense counsel with a two-page summary of allegations for POs Alvarado-Mota and DeJesus, along with 11 pages of underlying documents (People's affirmation at 6). The prosecution contends that defense counsel has not established that non-testifying PO Kelly and Sgt. Espinosa played an integral role in the arrest or investigation such that disclosure is warranted pursuant to People v Peralta , 190 NYS 3d 873, 956 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023] (People's affirmation at 7).

The People maintain that they complied with disclosure of CCRB records pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (2) because they disclosed what was in their possession and have no further duty regarding documents that are not within their actual or constructive possession (People's affirmation at 6). Further, the People aver that they exercised good faith and due diligence to comply with their obligations and claim that defense counsel waited too long to assert that Sgt. Espinosa had knowledge regarding defendant's case (People's affirmation at 5). The prosecution asserts that 30.30 time is quantifiable in days and, thus, their CoC filing was timely and that where the defense has failed to assert any prejudice caused by purported discovery deficiencies, dismissal of the accusatory instrument is unwarranted (People's affirmation at 11).

Lastly, the prosecution opposes defendant's motion to suppress statements and preclude evidence of prior convictions and bad acts, as well as defendant's reservation of rights; however, the People consent to defendant's request for a Huntley hearing and request that the issue of preclusion of prior convictions and bad acts be referred to the trial court (People's affirmation at 14-17).

II. Applicable Standard for CoC Challenge

To counter a motion to dismiss claiming that the People's CoC is illusory due to the prosecution's alleged failure to comply with CPL § 245.20, the People must demonstrate that they met their burden by detailing their efforts to obtain discoverable information (see People v Hernandez , 81 Misc 3d 1201[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51201[U], *6 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023] citing People v Adrovic , 69 Misc 3d 563, 572 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2020] ; CPL § 245.50 [3] ).

If the record does not establish that the People have detailed their efforts to discharge their obligation such that a court cannot determine their due diligence, the CoC must be deemed invalid (see Hernandez , 2023 NY Slip Op 51201[U], *7 citing People v Perez , 75 Misc 3d 1205[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50387[U], *3 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022]; People v Georgiopoulous , 71 Misc 3d 1215[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50380[U], *6 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2021]; People v Valdez , 80 Misc 3d 544, 547 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2023] ).

While there is no one-size fits all response to determining discovery compliance, this Court has held that "by following-up, the very essence of what it means to exercise due diligence," the prosecution's CoC can be deemed valid although some discovery is missing and/or belatedly disclosed (see Hernandez , 2023 NY Slip Op 51201[U], *15 citing People v Franklin , 78 Misc 3d 1232[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50400[U], *6 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]).

Recently, the Court of Appeals addressed the question of the People's due diligence in People v Bay , ––– NE3d ––––, 2023 NY Slip Op 06407 [2023]. The Bay court found that the "key question in determining if a proper certificate of compliance has been filed is whether the prosecution has exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to determine the existence of material and information subject to discovery," a case-specific inquiry of the record at bar (see Bay , 2023 NY Slip Op 06407, *15-16 [...