People v. McKinney
| Decision Date | 19 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | CR-019208-20KN |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Shakin MCKINNEY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
For the defendant: John Brewer, The Legal Aid Society.
For the People: Irene Castro, Kings County District Attorney's Office.
The defendant, charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (P.L. § 265.01(2)); Menacing in the Second Degree (P.L. § 120.14(1)); and Menacing in the Third Degree (P.L. § 120.15); now moves for an order deeming the People's Certificate of Compliance invalid and dismissing the information pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b).
After careful review of the defendant's motion, the People's response, the defendant's reply, and all relevant legal authority, the motion to dismiss is granted. The Court finds that 91 chargeable days have accrued since arraignment.
On October 7, 2020, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint on which the highest charge was a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of one year. Thus, the People had 90 days to be ready to proceed to trial. C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b). The defendant was released on his own recognizance and the case was adjourned to December 7, 2020 for conversion and for the People to comply with their discovery obligations under Article 245.
61 chargeable days.
On December 7, 2020, the case was conferenced and adjourned for the People to provide a supporting deposition and discovery. On December 24, 2020, the People served and filed a supporting deposition, a Certificate of Compliance (COC) pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.50(1), and a Statement of Readiness for trial (SOR). A review of the court file does not reveal whether the requisite inquiry into the People's actual readiness, under C.P.L. § 30.30(5), was made on the following court date. However, based on the discussion below, the Court finds that the People's COC was incomplete, and therefore the People were not actually ready for trial on December 24, 2020. Consequently, the People are charged for the entire adjournment. See People v. Brown , 28 NY3d 392, 404 (2016) ( citing People v. England , 84 NY2d 1, 4 (1994) ).
30 chargeable days.
On January 6, 2021, the case was conferenced, and the defendant was directed to serve and file a reciprocal Certificate of Compliance, as required by C.P.L. § 245.50(2). The case was adjourned to April 6, 2021. Because the adjournment was for the defendant to comply with his discovery obligations, this adjournment is excluded. See C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a).
0 chargeable days.
On April 6, 2021, the case was conferenced, and newly assigned defense counsel announced that he would challenge the People's previous Certificate of Compliance and file a motion to dismiss. The Court set a motion schedule, adjourning the case to May 19, 2021 for decision. Periods for motion practice are excludable under C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a), so this adjournment is excludable.
0 chargeable days.
As noted above, on December 24, 2021 the People served and filed a certificate of compliance. The defendant has challenged the validity of the certificate and argues that there are five categories of outstanding discovery.
C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(e) requires the prosecution to disclose "all statements, written or recorded or summarized in any writing or recording made by persons who have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto[.]" The defendant argues that this category includes the text messages sent between the arresting officer and his partner while on the scene. The People have responded that, according to Officer Genau, "the text messages were erased a long time ago" and that the purpose of the messages had been for Officer Genau to check that Detective Rivera "was fine as Detective Rivera was alone with the defendant and witnesses." Peo. Aff. & Memo. of Law p. 5-6 (Apr. 27, 2021). In an email to the Court and defense counsel, attached as Court Exhibit 1, the assigned ADA stated that Detective Rivera also does not have a copy of the text messages. Email from the assigned ADA (May 14, 2021) (Court Exhibit 1). Neither Detective Rivera nor the PSA 1 precinct's desk sergeant were aware of any backup or storage system for preserving text messages on NYPD-issued phones. Id. The People do not establish that any steps were taken to try to preserve the text messages prior to their erasure.
Based upon the representations of the People, the text messages appear to constitute lost or destroyed material; failure to disclose lost or destroyed material may be remedied by a motion for sanctions under C.P.L. § 245.80.
Following the defendant's arrest, the complaining witness told police officers that the defendant's stepson had threatened her and menaced her with a knife. The interaction between the complaining witness and the defendant's stepson was alleged to have happened after the defendant's arrest. See Def. Aff. ¶ 15-16 (Apr. 6, 2021). Police paperwork was generated in connection with the allegations against the defendant's stepson, and the defendant claims that he is entitled to this paperwork under C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(e). The People respond that they are not required to disclose the paperwork because the complaint against the defendant's stepson was closed when the defendant was arrested. Peo. Aff. & Memo. of Law p. 6 (Apr. 27, 2021). 1 Additionally, the People state that the People were unaware of the complaint against the defendant's stepson until the defendant raised it, and contend that the complaint against the defendant's stepson is duplicative of the complaint against the defendant. Id. The People do not address any additional police records that may have been generated in connection with the complaint against the defendant's stepson, such as activity log reports or body camera footage.
The fact that the complaint against the defendant's stepson has been closed, whether erroneously or not, and that the People were unaware of these materials, which were generated by NYPD and therefore presumed to be in the People's possession, does not satisfy the People's discovery obligations. However, the defendant is not charged with having acted in concert with his stepson to menace the complainant after the defendant had already been placed under arrest. The allegations against the defendant's stepson could not be used to prosecute the charges that are pending against the defendant, and the Court fails to see how these allegations, or any documentation of these allegations, are germane to any defense the defendant could raise. Therefore, the People were not required to disclose these items as part of their initial discovery obligations.
According to the defendant, police paperwork in this case references a previous incident in February 2019, and the defendant argues that he is entitled to all police paperwork connected to that incident. The People have responded that the February 2019 incident did not involve the defendant, or anyone connected to the defendant; rather, in what appears to be a wholly unrelated incident, the complaining witness had reported that someone had thrown a rock against her vehicle, damaging it. Peo. Aff. & Memo. of Law p. 7 (Apr. 27, 2021).
The broad disclosure requirements imposed by Article 245 are restricted to material and information that "relate to the subject matter of the case[.]" C.P.L. § 245.20(1). Similarly, statements and police reports that must be disclosed are those which are "relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto[.]" C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(e). The fact that the complaining witness has made a previous police report for an unrelated incident, occurring a year and a half before the instant allegations, has no apparent bearing on any of the charges or a potential defense to them. Therefore, any material and information in connection with the February 2019 incident need not be disclosed as part of the prosecution's initial discovery obligations.
The defendant argues that a previous complaint may have bearing on the complainant's credibility and so must be disclosed pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(k)(iv). This would be true only if the information established a possibility that the previous complaint by the complaining witness had been falsely made. See People v. Diaz , 20 NY3d 569, 576 (2013) (); People v. Bridgeland , 19 AD3d 1122, 1123 (4th Dept. 2005) () (emphasis added). A prior, true complaint by the complaining witness has no bearing on any potential defense, and does not tend to impeach the complainant's credibility. If the defendant can set forth a factual basis showing that the previous incident is reasonably likely to be material to the instant case, he can file a motion seeking additional disclosures pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.30(3). However, in the absence of any showing that the February 2019 complaint constitutes a false allegation, or otherwise has some bearing on the complainant's credibility, the Court sees no connection between that incident and the allegations charged here, and the People were not required to disclose the materials and information related to that incident as part of their initial discovery obligations.
Although not raised in the defendant's motion, the People stated in their response that the defendant's daughter initiated a complaint against the complaining witness for harassment on March 10, 2020. Peo. Aff. & Memo. of Law p. 7 (Apr. 27, 2021). The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pennant
...conduct bearing on credibility.’ " People v. Portillo , supra .In this same vein, as appropriately noted in People v. McKinney , 71 Misc. 3d 1221(A), 145 N.Y.S.3d 328 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2021) :While the list of items for which disclosure is required may have been partially drawn from Brad......
-
People v. Pennant
...limited to, any evidence or information discoverable under paragraph (k) of subdivision one of section 245.20 of this article. See: People v. McKinney, supra.; People v. Georgiopoulos, Only after the People have provided all of their automatic discovery, except for lost or destroyed items, ......
-
People v. Salters
...behalf in the case, that tends to: impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness." As appropriately noted in People v. McKinney , 71 Misc 3d 1221(A), 145 N.Y.S3d 328 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2021), this statutory obligation is broader than the People's Brady1 and Giglio2 obligatio......
-
People v. Smith
... ... 240. The criminal ... discovery procedure embodied in article 240, adopted in ... substance Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ... Judicial Conference Report on the CPL, Appendix B, McKenna, ... Memorandum and Proposed Statute Re Discovery, McKinney's ... 1974 Session Laws of New York, pp 1860, 1868. CPL Art. 240 ... "evinces 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 ... ...