People v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 08 October 2021
• Docket Number: Docket No. CR-003469-21NY
• Citation: 74 Misc.3d 433,160 N.Y.S.3d 532
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Johnny EDWARDS, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

74 Misc.3d 433

160 N.Y.S.3d 532

The PEOPLE of the State of New York

v.Johnny EDWARDS, Defendant.

Docket No. CR-003469-21NY

Criminal Court, City of New York, New York County.

Decided on October 8, 2021

Bernadette Rabuy (New York County Defender Services), for the defendant.

CYRUS VANCE, JR. (Kevin Ryan, of counsel), New York, for the People.

Jay L. Weiner, J.

The defendant moves for an order deeming the People's certificate of compliance invalid under Criminal Procedure Law sections 245.20 and 245.50, suppressing certain evidence, and other relief.

Procedural Background

After an incident involving a co-resident of his room at a hotel that was being used as a shelter, the defendant was arrested on or about February 20, 2021, and was charged, by misdemeanor complaint, with assault in the third degree ( Penal Law § 120.00[1] ), and related offenses. He was arraigned later that day. The People turned over various documents and disclosed information to the defense as part of their discovery obligations under Criminal Procedure Law article 245. Included in these materials was a "Disclosure Advisory Form" (DAF) summarizing allegations made against one of their witnesses, Police Officer Gonzalez. Those allegations, relating to a motor vehicle pursuit in which Officer Gonzalez had been injured, had been found "substantiated" by the New York City Police Department.

On May 24, 2021, the People filed a certificate of compliance under CPL 245.50. By notice of motion dated June 17, 2021, the defendant moved for the relief summarized above. With respect to the branches of his motion regarding the People's certificate of compliance, the defendant contends that the People have not complied with their discovery obligations under CPL 245.20 and 245.50 and that their certificate of compliance was therefore invalid. Specifically, the defendant contends that the People failed to disclose the following information: 1) the names of, and contact information for, two employees of the Department of Homeless Services whom the People know to have relevant information about the case; and 2) disciplinary records in Police Officer Gonzalez's Internal Affairs Bureau file regarding the substantiated allegation, and a list of, and any underlying records related to, any "unsubstantiated" allegations.

Discovery

As many courts and commentators have pointed out, the Legislature's 2020 rewriting of the criminal discovery statute has dramatically changed discovery in criminal cases (see People v. Barralaga , 73 Misc. 3d 510, 153 N.Y.S.3d 808, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 21248, *2 [Crim. Ct., N.Y. County 2021] ; People v. Mauro , 71 Misc. 3d 548, 552, 143 N.Y.S.3d 511 [County Ct., Westchester County 2021] ; People v. Porter , 71 Misc. 3d 187, 189, 142 N.Y.S.3d 703 [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2020] ; People v. Lustig , 68 Misc. 3d 234, 247, 123 N.Y.S.3d 469 [Sup. Ct., Queens County 2020] ; William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Criminal Procedure Law § 245.10 ).

These are the provisions of Criminal Procedure Law § 245.20 most relevant to this motion:

"1. Initial discovery for the defendant. The prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover ... 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 or control, including but not limited to:

(c) The names and adequate contact information for all persons other than law enforcement personnel whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto, including a designation by the prosecutor as to which of those persons may be called as witnesses....

(k) All evidence and information , including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government's behalf in the case, that tends to: ... iv) impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness.... "

...

2. Duties of the prosecution. The prosecutor 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 .... 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. ...

7. Presumption of openness. There shall be a presumption in favor of disclosure when interpreting sections 245.10 and 245.25, and subdivision one of section 245.20, of this article" (emphasis added).

Unlike the old discovery law, no request from the defendant is now needed to trigger the People's discovery obligations (see People ex rel. Ferro v. Brann , 197 A.D.3d 787, 787, 153 N.Y.S.3d 194 [2d Dept. 2021] ; People v. Mashiyach , 70 Misc. 3d 456, 458, 135 N.Y.S.3d 610 [Crim. Ct., Kings County 2020] ). Once the People have complied with the automatic discovery requirements of CPL 245.20(1), they must serve a certificate of compliance, which "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" ( CPL 245.50[1] ; see People v. Quinlan , 71 Misc. 3d 266, 271, 142 N.Y.S.3d 305 [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2021] ). The People "shall not be deemed ready for trial" under CPL 30.30 until they have filed "a proper certificate" under CPL 245.50(1) ( CPL 245.50[3] ).¹

1. Disclosure of the identity of security personnel.

The defendant's contention that the People violated their discovery obligations under CPL 245.20(1)(c) with respect to disclosure of information about the security personnel from the Department of Homeless Services is without merit. The People not only stated that they looked for the identity of the two employees, but also detailed their efforts to find the names and contact information for them. As noted by the prosecutor, in addition to the threshold inquiries made by examining the police paperwork and asking the arresting officer if he had the information, the People

"serv[ed] a subpoena upon the Department of Social Services requesting a copy of the shelter incident report and the names and contact information of all employees involved in the February 20, 2021 incident at the Help Meyer hotel on May 13, 2021. On May 14, 2021, the People received a copy of the shelter incident report which listed Al Keys as the only employee involved in the incident. The People turned over the name of this employee and contact information for him in the People's ADF. However, as the People did not have the names of the two female employees, the People were unable to provide defendant with their names or contact information despite the People's efforts to gather this information" (Affirmation of ADA Kevin Ryan at 6).

The People's thorough efforts in this regard cannot be faulted, and the lack of disclosure as to the names of the employees unknown to the People even after their diligent, good faith effort provides no basis to invalidate their certificate of compliance (see People v. Cruz Garcia , 72 Misc. 3d 1217[A], 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 50791[U], *14, 2021 WL 3627247 [Sup. Ct., Kings County 2021] ; People v. Alvarez , 71 Misc. 3d 1206[A], 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 50292[U], *3, 2021 WL 1377827 [Sup. Ct., Queens County 2021] ).

2. Disclosure of alleged misconduct of Officer Gonzalez

The People's disclosure as to Police Officer Gonzalez is a different matter. The People contend that they are not required to disclose information regarding a substantiated allegation of misconduct by Officer Gonzalez, because that allegation is not related to the subject matter of this case (Ryan Affirmation at 8). Nevertheless, in what the People characterize as an "abundance of caution" (id. ), they disclosed a summary of the allegations (but not the underlying material). The People have not disclosed any material with respect to any unsubstantiated allegations, and they contend that information and evidence as to unsubstantiated matters is not subject to disclosure (id. at 9-12).

The core issue concerns the interplay between the phrases "all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case" and "[a]ll evidence and information ... that tends to impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness" ( CPL 245.20[1] ). Attendant to this issue is whether the disputed material, if subject to disclosure, is within the People's possession or control.

The relevant principles of statutory interpretation are familiar. "The primary consideration of the courts in the construction of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature" (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 92; see People v. Wallace , 31 N.Y.3d 503, 507, 80 N.Y.S.3d 658, 105 N.E.3d 1238 [2018] ). "The legislative intent is to be ascertained from the words and language used, and the statutory language is generally construed according to its natural and most obvious sense, without resorting to an artificial or forced construction" (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94; see People v. Addimando , 197 A.D.3d 106, 111, 152 N.Y.S.3d 33 [2d Dept. 2021] ). Finally, "[s]tatutory words must be read in their context, and words, phrases, and sentences of a statutory section should be interpreted with reference to the scheme of the entire section" (see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 97 Comment at 213-214 [1971 ed]).

The Legislature's intent to require broad disclosure under Criminal Procedure Law article 245 is manifest (see Mauro , 71 Misc. 3d at 552, 143 N.Y.S.3d 511 ; William C. Donnino,...