People v. Harris

• Decision Date: 15 September 1997
• Citation: People v. Harris, 666 N.Y.S.2d 876, 174 Misc.2d 654 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997)
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 97,629 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Darrel HARRIS, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 876

666 N.Y.S.2d 876

174 Misc.2d 654, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 97,629

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Darrel HARRIS, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Kings County.

Sept. 15, 1997.

Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn (Joseph A. Zayas, Colleen Q. Brady and Timothy Rountree, of counsel), for defendant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn (Heide Mason, Gary Schreiber, Keith Dolan and Phillip C. Semprevivo, Jr., of counsel), for plaintiff.

ANNE G. FELDMAN, Justice.

Defendant is charged with twelve counts of murder in the first degree, five counts of attempted murder in the first degree, six counts of murder in the second degree, one count of attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, five counts of robbery in the first degree, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second, third and fourth degrees. He moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Grand Jury presentation was defective absent an instruction on intoxication. Defendant asserts that his statements to the police which the prosecution submitted to the Grand Jury were sufficient to warrant such an instruction. Moreover, in light of this court's decision in People v. Prater, 170 Misc.2d 327, 648 N.Y.S.2d 228, defendant also argues that intoxication is the functional equivalent of a "complete" defense to the charge of murder in the first degree and therefore must be charged to the Grand Jury.

The prosecution opposes defendant's motion, pointing out that intoxication is a mitigating rather than a complete defense and therefore need not be charged to the Grand Jury. The prosecution also asserts that in any event the evidence of intoxication in this case was insufficient to warrant such a charge.

The prosecution presented evidence to the Grand Jury which established, through eyewitness testimony, that defendant alone perpetrated a robbery during which he deliberately killed three people and seriously injured a fourth. Part of this presentation was defendant's written statement in which he claimed that he had been enlisted to participate in the robbery by another regular patron of the social club who had provided him with a handgun, and who, during the robbery, had grabbed the gun from his hand, causing it to discharge. In that statement defendant also said that:

It was about 6:30 p.m. I started drinking and getting high, smoking weed & coke. I then left, it was about 1:30 a.m. .... Saturday morning. I went to club 432--I sniff and smoke a little in there. I left & ... ran into Mitch, he said come and hang out a little bit at K.P.'s ... at 178 Jefferson. I smoke some coke at J.P.'s which [sic] Mitch. I just went crazy after that.

The individual accused by defendant as his co-perpetrator testified before the Grand Jury, stating that he was one of the surviving innocent patrons who witnessed the commission of the crime. Aside from defendant's statement no other evidence of intoxication was...