People v. Aguayza
| Decision Date | 27 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 70739/22 |
| Citation | 77 Misc.3d 482,179 N.Y.S.3d 859 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Carlos AGUAYZA, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
By Omnibus motion dated July 6, 2022, the defendant moves for the following: (1) Inspection and release of the Grand Jury minutes; (2) Dismissal of the Indictment as defective; (3) Dismissal of the Indictment, or alternatively, reduction of the counts as legally insufficient; (4) Suppression of Statement Evidence (Dunaway/Huntley ); (5) Suppression of Physical Evidence (Dunaway/Mapp ); (6) Suppression of Identification Evidence (Dunaway/Wade ); (7) a Sandoval Hearing; (8) Request for Bill of Particulars; (9) Demand to Produce ( CPL § 240.20, 240.40(1) ; (10) Reservation of Rights; and (11) Dismissal of the Indictment Pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (l)(a) and 210.20(l)(g)
Defendant's motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes is granted. Upon inspection, defendant's motion for release of the Grand Jury minutes is denied since the defendant has failed to demonstrate any compelling need for such action and the Court is able to determine the motion without assistance (see CPL § 210.30[3] ). However, the People are reminded of their obligation to disclose all transcript(s) of person(s) who testified before the Grand Jury, unless subject to a protective order, pursuant to CPL § 245.20(l)(b).
Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, or alternatively, to reduce the counts therein, is denied since the evidence adduced before the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to sustain the indictment. Moreover, the district attorney properly instructed the Grand Jury on the relevant law (see People v. Calbud, Inc ., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 426 N.Y.S.2d 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140 [1980] ). Lastly, the presentation of the case to the Grand Jury was not defective as a matter of law. The minutes reveal that a quorum of the Grand Jurors was present during the submission of evidence and at the time that the district attorney instructed the Grand Jury on the law. No unauthorized person within the meaning of CPL § 190.25 was present at any time during the proceedings (see People v. Sayavong, 83 N.Y.2d 702, 613 N.Y.S.2d 343, 635 N.E.2d 1213 [1994] ). Additionally, no irregularity that would impair the integrity of the Grand Jury occurred (see People v. Adessa , 89 N.Y.2d 677, 657 N.Y.S.2d 863, 680 N.E.2d 134 [1997]; People v. Huston , 88 N.Y.2d 400, 646 N.Y.S.2d 69, 668 N.E.2d 1362 [1996]).
The prosecutor and defense counsel (hereafter the parties) are reminded of their continuing duty to diligently confer with each other pertaining to any and all outstanding discovery issues/disputes, excluding protective orders under CPL § 245.70 .
Pursuant to the Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge and in furtherance of the fair administration of justice, the parties are hereby reminded and directed to uphold their constitutional, statutory, and ethical responsibilities in the above-captioned proceedings as indicated in the attached Order to Counsel in Criminal Cases.
Additionally, the People are ordered to comply with their initial automatic discovery obligations outlined in CPL §§ 245.10 and 245.20 ; their continuing discovery obligations as set forth in CPL § 245.60 ; and their continuing obligation to provide all Brady material. Finally, defendant and/or defense counsel are ordered to comply with their reciprocal discovery obligations pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20(4) and 245.60.
Defendant moves to dismiss the instant indictment pursuant to CPL § 30.30(l)(a) and CPL § 210(l)(g) on the ground that the People's Statement of Readiness filed on March 27, 2022, was illusory due to the People's failure to file a valid Certificate of Compliance with the requisite disclosure mandates pursuant to CPL 245.20 ; namely, the grand jury minutes.
Procedural History :
Defendant was arraigned on the felony complaint on September 30, 2021, in Queens County Criminal Court and the case was adjourned to October 5, 2021, for grand jury action. On October 5, 2021, the People had not yet obtained an indictment of this matter. The case was, thereafter, adjourned four (4) times between October 5, 2021, and March 8, 2022, for grand jury action. Notably, defendant had not waived speedy trial or consented to any adjournment during this entire period of time.
On March 22, 2022, the People filed a notice of voted indictment; followed shortly thereafter by a Certificate of Compliance and Statement of Readiness filed on March 27, 2022. {One Hundred and Seventy-Eight (178) total days charged to the People}
On April 12, 2022, the defendant was arraigned on the indictment in Supreme Court. The case was adjourned to May 18, 2022, for defense motions. This entire adjournment is excluded for motion practice pursuant to CPL § 30.30(4)(a) . {One Hundred and Seventy-Eight (178) total days charged to the People}
On May 18, 2022, defendant represented that defense motions would be filed by end of business on that date. The court adjourned the case to July 6, 2022, for decision on defendant's motion. This entire adjournment is excluded for motion practice pursuant to CPL § 30.30(4)(a) . {One Hundred and Seventy-Eight (178) total days charged to the People}
On July 6, 2022, defendant filed the instant motion. The court set a date for the People's response and adjourned the case to August 23, 2022, for decision on motion. This entire adjournment is excluded for motion practice pursuant to CPL § 30.30(4)(a) . {One Hundred and Seventy-Eight (178) total days charged to the People}
On August 23, 2022, motions were fully submitted. The court needed additional time to render its decision. The case was adjourned to September 12, 2022, for decision on motion. In the interim, on August 29, 2022, defendant filed a reply motion. This entire adjournment is excluded for motion practice pursuant to CPL § 30.30(4)(a) . {One Hundred and Seventy-Eight (178) total days charged to the People}
On September 12, 2022, the court had yet to render its decision on motions. The case was again adjourned to September 27, 2022, for decision on motion. This entire adjournment is excluded for motion practice pursuant to CPL § 30.30(4)(a) . {One Hundred and Seventy-Eight (178) total days charged to the People}
People's Certificate of Compliance and Statement of Readiness :
CPL § 245.20(7) directs this Court to apply a presumption in favor of disclosure when interpreting the statutory text of CPL §§ 245.10, 245.25, and 245.20. All items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York State or local police department or law enforcement agency are explicitly deemed to be in the prosecutor's possession, custody, or control ( CPL § 245.20[2] ). The statute further imposes an automatic and affirmative duty upon the prosecutor to make diligent, good-faith efforts to determine the existence of material and/or information to be available for discovery where it exists but is not (emphasis added ) within the prosecutor's possession, custody, or control ( CPL § 245.20[7] ). Where, despite diligent, good faith efforts and reasonable inquiry, the People are unable to secure and disclose mandated discoverable material within the statutorily allotted time periods, the law prescribes that the People make an application to the court to enlarge the time to comply with its disclosure requirements ( CPL § 245.70[2] ).
The new discovery statute imposes an affirmative and ongoing duty for the People to obtain and disclose additional material and information that is subject to automatic mandatory
discovery pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (see, CPL § 245.60 ). Moreover, the new law now directly links the People's compliance with its automatic discovery obligations, as a condition precedent, to the validity of its Statement of Readiness (SOR) and speedy trial calculations.
To be sure, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, CPL § 245.50(3) provides that absent an individualized finding of special circumstances by the court before which a charge is pending, the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial pursuant to CPL § 30.30 until it has filed a proper Certificate of Compliance pursuant to CPL § 245.50(1). Similarly, CPL § 30.30(5) requires that any statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of CPL § 245.20.
In order for the People to file a valid SOR, the People must first: (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial