People v. Gonzalez

• Decision Date: 19 August 2020
• Docket Number: 615/2019
• Citation: 68 Misc.3d 1213 (A),130 N.Y.S.3d 262 (Table)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Emmanuel GONZALEZ, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

68 Misc.3d 1213 (A)
130 N.Y.S.3d 262 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Emmanuel GONZALEZ, Defendant.

615/2019

Supreme Court, Kings County, New York.

Decided August 19, 2020

ADA Christopher Mirabella, Kings County District Attorney's Office

Steven C. Kuza, Esq., Legal Aid Society

John T. Hecht, J.

Defendant Emmanuel Gonzalez is charged with two counts of rape in the third degree, six counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree, eight counts of sexual misconduct, two counts of forcible touching, twelve counts of sexual abuse in the third degree, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, based on incidents that allegedly occurred in September, October and November of 2018, when defendant was twenty-one-years old and the complainant fifteen and when, in addition to sexually assaulting her, defendant allegedly requested that she supply him with nude photographs of herself.

The People provided defendant with numerous items of discovery pursuant to the then-extant Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 240.45 and People v. Rosario , 9 NY2d 286 (1961), between March and September of 2019. On January 14, 2020, after the effective date of the newly enacted CPL Article 245, they then provided additional discovery materials. On February 21, 2020, the People served and filed a certificate of compliance with CPL § 245.20, as well as additional discovery and an inventory of discovery materials (see CPL § 245.50 ). A few more items of discovery were served on defendant with a supplemental certificate of compliance on July 22, 2020.

Defendant moves to compel disclosure of outstanding discovery and asks the court to find that the People's certificate of compliance is invalid.

Further, although the People previously consented to a Huntley hearing with respect to defendant's videotaped statement to the investigating detective, defendant now moves additionally to suppress a self-denominated "confession" he allegedly made to complainant's mother, a civilian witness, on December 12, 2018, or in the alternative for a voluntariness hearing (citing CPL §§ 710.20 [3], 60.45 [2] ). He also seeks a hearing pursuant to Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573 (1980), to suppress statements and physical evidence obtained from him as a result of his having allegedly been unlawfully arrested in his home without a warrant or consent.

The People oppose defendant's motion to compel and his Payton motion.

With respect to the motion to compel, the "automatic discovery" provision of CPL § 245.20 (1) provides a non-inclusive list of items required to be disclosed to a defendant. This obligation includes "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" ( CPL § 245.20 [1] [emphasis supplied] ). The statute requires that the prosecution certify its compliance with its discovery obligations in writing ( CPL § 245.50 [1] ) and that challenges or questions related to a certificate of compliance be addressed by motion ( CPL § 245.50 [4] ).

CPL § 245.60 imposes a continuing duty to disclose discoverable material that comes into the People's possession subsequent to their filing a certificate of compliance and allows the People to file a supplemental certificate.

Finally, CPL § 245.50 [1] provides that "[n]o adverse consequence to the prosecution or the prosecutor shall result from the filing of a certificate of compliance in good faith."

In his motion, defendant claims that the People failed to comply with their obligations as to several items of discovery. For the reasons stated in the People's response, the court finds that the People have in fact complied with their discovery obligations: the items do not exist, do not relate to the subject matter of the case, are not in the People's control, or have previously been disclosed.

In addition, in response to defendant's claim that some documents were improperly redacted, the People provided the court with unredacted copies of the Grand Jury Synopsis Sheet, the Early Case Assessment Bureau (ECAB) Screening Sheet, the Domain Awareness System (DAS) search result, and the Civilian Complaint Review Board Allegation History and Central Personnel Index File of a detective. As a result of the court's review, the People, at the court's direction, produced unredacted copies of all but one portion of the Grand Jury Synopsis Sheet and the entire ECAB Screening Sheet, making any further ruling as to those items unnecessary, except for the following observation.

The People cogently argue that Article 245 does not require the People to seek a protective order to redact information that is not discoverable. If material is not subject to disclosure, it may be redacted or withheld by the People. Although a protective order...