People v. Godfred
| Decision Date | 19 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. CR-005088-22BX |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Amissah GODFRED, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
ADA LaToya Stephens, Office of the Bronx District Attorney, for the People.
Marissa Balonon-Rosen, Esq., The Bronx Defenders, for the Defendant.
Defendant is charged with violations of VTL article 1192. The instant motion seeks orders from the Court as follows: (i) dismissing the information pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 [1][a][ii] and 245.20 [2] for the People's failure to timely comply with the discovery obligations, or alternatively granting a hearing to determine the facts and conclusions of law regarding this issue; (ii) suppressing all observations of police and evidence obtained as the result of Defendant's warrantless arrest without probable cause, or alternatively a Mapp/Dunaway hearing. The People oppose the motion in its entirety. In determining the issues herein, the Court has reviewed the motion papers and the court file and has determined that the motion can be decided based on the submissions and the court file. (see People v. Allard, 28 N.Y.3d 41, 63 N.E.3d 1140 [2016] ; People v. Lomax , 50 N.Y.2d 351, 428 N.Y.S.2d 937, 406 N.E.2d 793 [1980] ).
On March 27, 2022, NYPD Officer Christopher Alvarado witnessed Defendant collide with multiple parked cars and observed that Defendant exhibited indicia of alcohol intoxication. After a chemical test of his breath registered a blood alcohol level of .25%, Defendant was arrested and arraigned on charges of four violations of article 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, including Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated.
Defendant filed this motion on October 17, 2022. No trial date has yet been set.
On June 24, 2022, the eighty-eighth day after arraignment, the People filed their certificate of compliance with discovery obligations ("COC") and a statement of trial readiness ("SOR"). On June 30 and July 1, 2022, the People shared additional discovery (a portion of the IDTU video, activity logs and roll call information for involved officers) and filed a supplemental COC.
Thereafter, on September 8, 2022, defense counsel notified the assigned ADA regarding the following missing discovery: (i) part of the IDTU video; (ii) accident and aided reports; (iii) photographs, if any; (iv) completed translator form; (v) underlying court documents for police officer lawsuits; (vi) underlying documents for substantiated and unsubstantiated misconduct allegations; (vii) CCRB history; and (viii) correct contact info for a police witness.
On September 29, 2022, the People shared with Defendant photographs taken at the scene, remainder of the IDTU video, corrected contact information for a police witness, two accident reports, IDTU officer license, and activity log. The prosecutor also served and filed with the court a letter setting forth the efforts they made to obtain and provide the missing discovery.1
Defendant asserts that a speedy trial dismissal of the case is required due to the delayed sharing of discovery within the timelines provided in CPL § 245.10 [1][a][ii] and § 30.30 [1][b], and the alleged incomplete disclosure of impeachment material under § 245.20 [1][k][iv]. In opposition, the ADA affirms that the delayed disclosure was due to the many police personnel who responded to the scene, as well as "technical errors" (mentioned without elaboration) which thwarted discovery disclosure efforts. The prosecutor has described her efforts to obtain and share the required discovery prior to filing her COC. She had sent nine emails to different NYPD members requesting required materials; her continued efforts to obtain the complete IDTU video included going up the chain of command to contact the NYPD Lieutenant. The ADA demonstrated that when counsel alerted her to the missing items more than two months later, she promptly investigated and provided the items missing items. There is no evidence that the ADA knew of or intentionally withheld any required materials that were not timely provided. (see, e.g., People v. Cooper, 71 Misc.3d 559, 143 N.Y.S.3d 805 [Erie County Court, 2021] ["the People may not withhold known material and information and expect the court to accept a COC and SOR"]).
No clear appellate guidance exists yet to resolve the contradictory trial court decisions regarding the propriety of dismissing a criminal case for insufficient or untimely disclosure of required automatic discovery under the 2020 statutory scheme. The Court has considered the rules of statutory construction, available legislative history and intent of article 245, pre-existing jurisprudence regarding discovery violations, and the express terms of the statute.
In interpreting statutes, courts are mandated to "ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature." (Statutes §§ 92[a]; 98; 111; see People v. Mitchell , 38 N.Y.3d 408, 411, 174 N.Y.S.3d 1, 194 N.E.3d 708 [2022] ; Riley v. County of Broome , 95 N.Y.2d 455, 463, 719 N.Y.S.2d 623, 742 N.E.2d 98 [2000] ). While the "statutory text is the clearest indicator of legislative intent," (Statutes § 94; Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp v. Spitzer , 7 N.Y.3d 653, 660, 827 N.Y.S.2d 88, 860 N.E.2d 705 ), courts cannot "slavishly follow" the text, as all "interlocking provisions of a statute must be harmonized" to give a "sensible practical overall construction which is consistent with and furthers" the enactment's scheme and purpose. (Statutes §§ 97, 111; Long v. Adirondack Park Agency , 76 N.Y.2d 416, 420, 559 N.Y.S.2d 941, 559 N.E.2d 635 [1990] ; Vink v. DHCR , 285 A.D.2d 203, 209—210, 729 N.Y.S.2d 697 [1st Dep't 2001] ; 207 Realty Assocs., LLC v. N.Y.S. D.H.C.R. , 22 Misc.3d 509, 515, 874 N.Y.S.2d 704 [Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2008] ; People v. Kramer , 45 Misc.3d 458, 464, 994 N.Y.S.2d 256 [Just Ct. Village of Massapequa Park 2014] ). Courts are thus mandated to reject statutory language "which leads to conclusions inconsistent with purpose of the statute, or consequences irreconcilable with its spirit and reason." ( Id. ; Le Drugstore Etats Unis, Inc. v. New York State Bd. of Pharmacy , 33 N.Y.2d 298, 302, 352 N.Y.S.2d 188, 307 N.E.2d 249 [1973] ; Astman v. Kelly , 2 N.Y.2d 567, 572, 161 N.Y.S.2d 860, 141 N.E.2d 899 [1957] ; People v. Kramer , 45 Misc.3d at 464, 994 N.Y.S.2d 256 ). "Language, however strong, must yield to what appears to be the intention, and that is to be found, not in the words of the particular section alone, but by comparing it with other parts or provisions of the general scheme of which it is a part." ( Hayden v. Pierce , 144 N.Y. 512, 516, 39 N.E. 638 [1895] ).
The passage of article 245 did not vitiate the rules of statutory construction. Courts always have been required to "look at the general scope and design of the law, the evil to be remedied or the benefit attained, and so to construe the law as to accomplish the object the Legislature has in view." ( In re Cooper , 22 N.Y. 67 [1860] ). Courts must never interpret a statute "to produce a public mischief or to promote injustice." ( Hayden v. Pierce , 144 N.Y. at 516, 39 N.E. 638 ).
Criminal discovery rules always have evinced "a legislative determination that the trial of a criminal charge should not be a sporting event where each side remains ignorant of facts in the hands of the adversary until events unfold at trial." ( People v. Copicotto, 50 N.Y.2d 222, 226, 428 N.Y.S.2d 649, 406 N.E.2d 465 [1980] ). Prior to 2020, discovery procedures were cumbersome, outdated, and inefficient, resulting in defendants being blindsided by late disclosure of important evidence on the eve of trial. ( People v. Leonardo , 75 Misc.3d 1237(A), 2022 WL 3364790 [Crim. Ct. Queens County 2022] ; People v. Adrovic , 69 Misc.3d 563, 571, 130 N.Y.S.3d 614 [Crim. Ct. Kings County 2020] ). The old restrictive rules also "inhibit[ed], at great taxpayer cost," defendants’ ability to reach reasonable pre-trial dispositions of their cases precisely because they lacked sufficient early access to the evidence against them. (2019 NY Senate-Assembly Bill S1716, A1431, NY Committee Reports 1/17/2019 and 1/31/2019).
The purpose of and justification for article 245 was specifically to eliminate "trial by ambush;" to remedy the above inequities by mandating earlier and broader discovery obligations by the prosecution, increasing efficiency in prosecutions and fairness to both sides. ( Id. ). CPL article 245 seeks to ensure that defendants and their attorneys can "intelligently investigate, secure and use any potentially exculpatory evidence, fairly weigh a guilty plea offer, or develop an appropriate trial strategy." (Id. ). Article 245 simply effectuates long-standing legislative and constitutional goals of evidence sharing: enabling defendants to make better-informed trial and plea decisions, minimizing tactical and often unfair advantages to one side, and increasing to some degree the opportunity for an accurate determination of guilt or innocence. ( People v. Copicotto, 50 N.Y.2d 222, 226, 428 N.Y.S.2d 649, 406 N.E.2d 465 [1980] ).
Because this statute is remedial, it "should be liberally and not narrowly construed" ( Morgan v. Hedstrom , 164 N.Y. 224, 231, 58 N.E. 26 [1900] ). It was not meant to encourage gamesmanship by defendants seeking to create "an inescapable trap for the diligent prosecutor who professionally, assiduously and in good faith attempts to comply" with their new procedures. ( People v. Erby , 68 Misc.3d 625, 633, 128 N.Y.S.3d 418 [Sup. Ct. Bronx County 2020] ). Instead, the rules seek not to punish unintentional or harmless non-compliance, but to ensure that defendants get a fair trial. ( People v. Florez , 74 Misc.3d 1222(A), *7, 2022 WL 792140 [Sup. Ct. Nassau County 2022] ).
The structure of CPL article 245 demonstrates the Legislature's recognition that the reality...
To continue reading
Request your trial