People v. Matera
| Decision Date | 05 January 1967 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. John MATERA, Joseph Florio, William Crabbe, Thomas Matteo and John Franzese, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Evseroff, Newman & Sonenshine, Brooklyn (Jacob R. Evseroff, Brooklyn, of counsel), for defendant John Matera, for motion.
Philip Vitello, Brooklyn, for defendant Joseph Florio, for motion.
Herbert A. Lyon and William Santoro, Kew Gardens, for defendant William Crabbe, for motion.
Kleinman, Gold & Landsman, Brooklyn (William W. Kleinman, Brooklyn, of counsel), for defendant Thomas Matteo, for motions.
Sabbatino & Todarelli, New York City (Peter L. F. Sabbatino and Henry J. Boitel, New York City, of counsel), for defendant John Franzese, for motion.
Nat H. Hentel, Dist. Atty., Queens County, New York (Lawrence T. Gresser, Jamaica, and Timothy J. Flaherty, New York City, of counsel), opposed.
Defendants are jointly accused of Murder in the First Degree by an indictment, drawn in the common-law form, alleging that on or about August 5, 1964, they acted in concert in the commission of the crime, by shooting and stabbing the deceased. The following motions are decided herewith.
Motion Number One--This motion is made on behalf of defendant Matera for an order permitting him to inspect the Grand Jury minutes or, in the alternative, for an order dismissing the indictment as against him, on the ground that the evidence upon which it was found was insufficient as a matter of law and for a further order directing the District Attorney to furnish a bill of particulars, specifying three items.
Motion Number Two--This motion is made on behalf of defendant Florio for an order granting him an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes or, in the alternative, that the Court inspect the minutes and order that the indictment be dismissed as against him, on the ground that it is founded on insufficient legal evidence.
Motion Number Three--This motion is also made on behalf of defendant Florio, for an order directing the District Attorney to furnish him with a bill of particulars embracing twenty-one items, including the cause of decedent's death.
Motion Number Four--This motion is made on behalf of defendant Crabbe for an order granting him permission to inspect the Grand Jury minutes or, in the alternative, for a dismissal of the 'information' (sic) as against him, for want of sufficient evidentiary foundation.
Motion Number Five--This motion is made on behalf of defendant Crabbe for an order directing the District Attorney to furnish him with a bill of particulars, specifying fourteen items.
Motion Number Six--This motion is made on behalf of defendant Matteo for an order granting him an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes or, in the alternative (in substance), that the Court inspect the minutes and order that the indictment be dismissed as against the moving defendant because it is not based on sufficient legal evidence.
Motion Number Seven--This motion is likewise made on behalf of defendant Matteo, and seeks an order requiring the District Attorney to furnish a bill of particulars, specifying thirteen items.
Motion Number Eight--This motion is made on behalf of defendant Franzese (1) for an order granting him an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes or, in the alternative, that the Court inspect the minutes and order that the indictment be dismissed, as against him, on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient to warrant the finding thereof; (2) for an order directing the District Attorney to furnish a bill of particulars, enumerating eight items and (3) for an order directing the District Attorney (a) to permit defendant to inspect and copy any written or recorded statements, confessions or admissions allegedly made by him; (b) to permit defendant to inspect and copy any written or recorded memoranda of oral confessions, if any, claimed to have been made by him and (c) to permit defendant to inspect and copy portions, or the whole, of books, papers, documents or copies thereof 'and whatever tangible objects are in the possession or under the control of the District Attorney and which may be material to the issues involved in this case, including articles of wearing apparel, eye glasses and other personal effects found on the person of (deceased) at the time his body was discovered' and (d) 'for such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the premises'.
Each motion for an order granting the respective defendants permission to inspect the Grand Jury minutes is denied.
Each motion for an order dismissing the indictment on the ground that the finding thereof was not warranted by the evidence presented to the Grand Jury is likewise denied. In accordance with the requests of the moving parties, the Court has inspected the minutes and finds the evidence sufficient to justify the action of the Grand Jury in jointly indicting defendants for the crime charged (Code Crim.Proc. Sec. 251).
The District Attorney is directed to supply each of the defendants with a copy of the report of the autopsy performed on the body of the deceased. In all other respects, each motion for an order directing the District Attorney to furnish defendants a bill of particulars, is denied.
Orders accordingly are made and entered herewith disposing of each separate motion. Ordinarily, motions of this kind are decided with minimal discussion, if any. This case is exceptional in that the circumstances dictate an unusually narrow confinement of the exercise of the Court's discretion.
The body of the deceased was discoverd floating in Jamaica Bay on August 24, 1964, bearing not merely the unmistakable signs of murder but, more significantly, evidencing a craftsmanship commonly employed in enforcement of the law of the jungle. It was tied up, weighted down by concrete blocks and wrapped in heavy chain as well. Obviously, the decedent had incurred someone's deadly animosity, in his lifetime. Through the medium of their motions for bills of particulars, the moving defendants would have the Court direct the District Attorney to supply them with the precise date and hour when, as well as the precise place where, decedent was shot and stabbed. Ordinarily, the District Attorney can fairly be expected to meet such requirements but this is not a usual case. On the argument of this motion I was predisposed to regard the time alleged in the indictment as insufficient to satisfy the requirements of fundamental fairness, particularly in view of the fact that the District Attorney had served demands for the particulars of any alibis that defendants intend to offer on the trial. Upon a reading of the Grand Jury minutes, however, I came to appreciate the force of the Assistant District Attorney's statement, on argument, that I now perceive that the fair import of the Assistant District Attorney's remarks was that the District Attorney does not have knowledge or information that would enable him to be more specific in stating the time of the commission of the homicide and the content of the Grand Jury minutes makes it clear that he was not mistaken. There has, of course, never been any question about his sincerity. Thus, in declining to require the District Attorney to specify the time precisely, as demanded by defendants, I simply recognize his inability to do so.
While the resulting disadvantage to defendants is apparently aggravated by the District Attorney's demand for a bill of particulars, their predicament was actually created by the perpetrators of the crime, of which these defendants are presumably innocent. Hence, as between defendants and the District Attorney, the disadvantage is mutual and the tolerance on both sides should be equal. Needless to say, I cannot bind the trial judge by a pre-trial ruling and any suggestive utterance along that line would be both inappropriate and superfluous, for the trial Court's conscience will be at least as sensitive as my own.
To a lesser extent the same is true of defendants' demands that the District Attorney specify the precise place of the commission of the acts of fatal violence. 1 The allegations of the indictment suggest that there may have been contributing causes of the death. The actual perpetrators know when and where the shooting and stabbing occurred. In a different setting, my sense of judicial discretion would require that defendants be more adequately informed as to the place of commission of the acts causing the death, if known by the District Attorney. There are cases, however, in which discretion is necessarily guided by other considerations and my examination of the Grand Jury minutes persuades me that this is such a case.
My earlier reference to 'craftsmanship' in disposing of the body of the victim of this homicide was made because of the realistic connotation of the word and not what might be supposed to be its dramatic undertone. The point is, that the person or persons who murdered the deceased and got rid of his remains dealt with the body in such manner as to offer an impressive warning to others who might invite their enmity or that of any others at whose instance they may have acted. The hazard to anyone who might connect them with the killing, directly or circumstantially, is immediately obvious and it is not unreasonable to apprehend that those who participated would welcome and follow up any clues afforded by details bared in a bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Utley
...Supra; People v. Calandrillo, 29 Misc.2d 495, 215 N.Y.S.2d 364; People v. Nassar, 60 Misc.2d 27, 301 N.Y.S.2d 678; People v. Matera, 52 Misc.2d 674, 276 N.Y.S.2d 776; People v. Rogas, 158 Misc. 567, 287 N.Y.S. The defendant's request is highly relevant and material to his defense and meets ......
-
People v. Jackson
...Kings Co.1987] affd. 139 A.D.2d 524, 526 N.Y.S.2d 620 lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 918, 532 N.Y.S.2d 852, 529 N.E.2d 182; People v. Matera, 52 Misc.2d 674, 687, 276 N.Y.S.2d 776 [Sup.Ct., Criminal Term, Queens Co.1967 (Judge Farrell) ]. The second theory is that the "Government" has the Brady duty ......
-
Vergari v. Kendall
...N.Y.S.2d 858; People v. Ricci, 59 Misc.2d 259, 298 N.Y.S.2d 637; People v. McDonald, 59 Misc.2d 311, 298 N.Y.S.2d 625; People v. Matera, 52 Misc.2d 674, 276 N.Y.S.2d 776). The record reveals no unusual or exceptional circumstances involved in the three cases in which the Mount Vernon City C......
-
People v. Morris
...(see CPL 210.45, subd. 3). We need not now comment upon the conditions which might constitute such good cause (cf. People v. Matera, 52 Misc.2d 674, 678-679, 276 N.Y.S.2d 776). If defendant's claims are borne out, without a showing of good cause, the indictment should be dismissed because i......