People v. Huntington, 2008 NY Slip Op 51350(U) (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 7/3/2008), 08-020-I.
| Decision Date | 03 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | 08-020-I. |
| Citation | 2008 NY Slip Op 51350 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, v. PATRICK W. HUNTINGTON, Defendant |
| Court | New York District Court |
Julie A. Garcia, Esq., Essex County District Attorney, (Brian W. Felton, Esq., of counsel), Elizabethtown, New York.
Brennan & White, LLP (Eric C. Schwenker, Esq., of counsel), Queensbury, New York, for the defendant.
Pretrial motion (CPL §255.10) by the defendant for relief in the nature of dismissal or reduction of an indictment, granting discovery and/or a bill of particulars, preclusion and/or suppression of evidence, and other relief.
The defendant is charged by an eight-count indictment with the commission of the crimes of assault in the first degree (Penal Law §120.10[3]), a class B violent felony, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §140.25[2]), a class C felony, two counts of coercion in the second degree (Penal Law §135.65[1]), class D felonies, unlawful imprisonment (Penal Law §135.10), a class E felony, two counts of unlawfully dealing with a child (Penal Law §260.20[2]), class A misdemeanors, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law§145.00[1]), a class A misdemeanor. The charges arise out of an incident alleged to have occurred on February 22, 2008 in the Town of Ticonderoga, Essex County.
The defendant moves to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the evidence before the grand jury was not legally sufficient to establish the offenses charged or any lesser included offense (CPL §210.20[1][b], §210.30), and that the grand jury proceeding was defective (CPL §210.20[1][c], §210.35). The defendant also moves to inspect the grand jury minutes (CPL §210.30).
The defendant's motion to inspect the grand jury minutes is granted. The evidence before the grand jury established that on February 22, 2008, a Friday, Sierra te'Riele, the defendant's twenty year old girlfriend was at the home of Michele Jordan. Also present were Jordan's stepfather, her mother and a friend of Jordan's parents. While there, te'Riele and Jordan, also twenty years old, consumed alcohol provided by the defendant.
Later, te'Riele and Jordan went to the home of Seth Gould, who resided with his grandmother, located on Lonergan Lane in Ticonderoga, New York. Neither Gould, who was working, nor his grandmother, who was in the hospital, were there. Gould had gone to work at 8:00 p.m., leaving Michael Alteri and Nick Treadway at the Gould residence. te'Riele and Jordan arrived after Gould had gone to work, but Gould testified that he "did not mind" that they were at his grandmother's home. Gould did not testify that he left any instructions with Alteri and Treadway concerning who could, and who could not, be at his grandmother's home while he was at work.
After hearing a knock on the door, te'Riele opened the door and the defendant walked in. The defendant told te'Riele that she had to leave with him, but she told him that she was not leaving. Jordan positioned herself between the defendant and te'Riele and told the defendant that he had to leave, that he was not invited, and that she was going to call the police. The defendant pushed Jordan, and she fell to the floor. The defendant then cleared off a table, breaking two bobblehead dolls worth approximately twenty dollars. He grabbed te'Riele and dragged her down the stairs and outside. te'Riele testified that she decided to go with him instead of making it worse on everyone else.
Chris Hanley drove the defendant and te'Riele to their joint residence on Myers Street in Ticonderoga. While there, they argued and te'Riele asked the defendant to leave. When she attempted to leave the defendant stepped in front of her. He told her that if she left he "was going to come after" her. He then moved out of the way, and she left.
As she was walking fast down the road, the defendant tackled her. He ended up on top of her and told her that he was going to kill her. The defendant, using his open hand, then hit her in the face an unknown number of times. After grabbing at her face with both hands, he grabbed her neck and squeezed so that she could not breathe and became dizzy. She told him that she loved him and wanted to be with him, and he stopped. She slipped out of her jacket and crawled away. After getting on her feet she ran up the road towards a police officer with the defendant chasing her. During the incident, her jewelry was torn off, including two earrings in her left ear.
te'Riele went to the hospital at around 11:00 p.m. where she was examined by Elizabeth Meehan, a registered nurse. Meehan observed blood from te'Riele's nose and ear, and her nose, eyelids and face were swollen. Meehan also observed abrasions on her cheek, marks on the sides of her neck, and two red marks on her back, one under her bra approximately four inches across and the other below her waistline. te'Riele was cleaned up and given a tetanus shot.
Inspection of the minutes and voting sheet filed with the Court reveal that a quorum of at least sixteen grand jurors were present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the district attorney instructed the grand jury on the law, and at least 12 of those grand jurors voted to indict the defendant.
Count one charges the defendant with the crime of assault in the first degree based upon "recklessly [engaging] in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person" "[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life" (Penal Law §120.10[3]). The district attorney's instructions to the grand jury on this count did not include the definition of or instruction for "depraved indifference to human life".
"Failure to read statutory definitions of terms whose meaning is obvious will not be fatal (see, People v. Rockwell, 97 AD2d 853, 854, 469 NYS2d 252; see also, People v. Scott, 175 AD2d 625, 572 NYS2d 562, lv. denied 78 NY2d 1130, 578 NYS2d 888, 586 NE2d 71)" (People v. Levens, 252 AD2d 665, 666-667, 677 NYS2d 390, 392 leave to appeal denied 92 NY2d 927, 680 NYS2d 468, 703 NE2d 280). The term "depraved indifference" is not such a term. "[D]epraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state" (People v. Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 294, 819 NYS2d 691, 695, 852 NE2d 1163, 1167), the meaning of which has been the subject of considerable judicial analysis and revision (see People v. Feingold, supra; People v. Suarez, 6 NY3d 202, 811 NYS2d 267, 844 NE2d 721; 60 NY2d 270, 457 NE2d 704, 469 NYS2d 599; see also People v. Register, 60 NY2d 270, 469 NYS2d 599, 457 NE2d 704).
The failure to instruct the grand jury on "depraved indifference to human life" (see CJI2d [NY] Penal Law §120.10[3]) is fatal here, and count one must be and is dismissed.
Counts three and four, charge the defendant with the crime of coercion in the first degree (Penal Law §135.65[1]) occurring at the Gould residence on Lonergan Lane and their joint residence on Myers Street, respectively. In submitting the case to the grand jury, the People instructed the grand jury on the law but did not specify the location, or anything else, for either count. The minutes and vote sheet do not state the location or other facts upon which the grand jury voted to indict the defendant on each count. Similarly, neither the minutes of the grand jury proceedings nor the vote sheet identify the alleged victim, respectively, for counts six and seven, charging the defendant with unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree (Penal Law §260.20[2]) by furnishing alcohol.
Although the indictment prepared by the district attorney's office contains an accusatory part and a factual statement (CPL §210.50[4] and [7]) for these four counts, including the location of the alleged coercion for each of counts three and four and the identity of the alleged victim in each of counts six and seven, there is nothing in the record of the grand jury proceedings to indicate that the grand jury determined these matters. The procedure utilized here gives the appearance that the grand jury only voted on the accusatory part of the indictment, leaving it to the People to determine and fill in the factual statement supporting each count, including which coercion count applied to the events at the Lonergan Lane and Myers Street locations, and who the victim was for each of counts six and seven.
"The grand jury is the exclusive judge of the facts with respect to any matter before it" (CPL §190.25[5]). Since the record is silent as to a determination by the grand jury that count three is based upon the events at Lonergan Lane, count four is based upon the events at Myers Street, te'Riele is the person to whom the defendant furnished alcoholic beverages in count six, and Jordan is the person to whom he furnished such beverages in count seven, all of those counts must be and are dismissed.
As to the remaining counts of burglary in the second degree (count two), unlawful imprisonment (count five), and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (count eight), the court has reviewed the grand jury minutes to determine whether sufficient evidence was presented to support each and every count in the indictment.
"[A]n indictment is presumed to be based on legal and sufficient evidence" (People v. Bergerson, 17 NY2d 398, 402, 218 NE2d 288, 290, 271 NYS2d 236, 238; see also People v. Howell, 3 NY2d 672, 675, 171 NYS2d 801, 803, 148 NE2d 867, 868). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury, including proof encompassing any requisite culpable mental state (People v. Mayo, 36 NY2d 1002, 374 NYS2d 609, 337 NE2d 124; People v. Lott, 104 AD2d 710, 480 NYS2d 597; People v. Delameter, 96 AD2d 629, 464 NYS2d 878), the Court must view such evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and determine whether such evidence, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would constituteprima facie proof so as to warrant a conviction after...
To continue reading
Request your trial