People v. McLean
| Decision Date | 18 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. CR-005402-22KN |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Curtis MCLEAN, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
For the People: ADA Jamie Sullivan for the Kings County District Attorney's Office
For defendant: Danielle Ribaudo, Esq. from the Brooklyn Defender Services.
Defendant is charged with Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 120.00[1]); Petit Larceny (PL § 155.25); Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (PL § 165.40); Endangering the Welfare of a Child (PL § 260.10[1]); Attempted Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 110/120.00[1]); Menacing in the Third Degree (PL § 120.15); and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26[1]). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 30.30(1) and 170.30(1)(e), challenging the timeliness and validity of the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC") and Statement of Readiness ("SOR"). The People oppose defendant's motion in its entirety. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is DENIED.
On March 3, 2022, defendant was arraigned on the Kings County criminal complaint, Docket No. CR-005402-22KN, and charged with Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 120.00[1]) and other related charges. Defendant was released on his own recognize.
On June 1, 2022, the People filed and served their COC and SOR.
On July 1, 2022, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. His motion challenged the timeliness and validity of the People's COC, arguing that the People failed to turn over certain discoverable materials as required by Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") § 245.20(1).
On July 6, 2022, the People filed and served their first Supplemental Certificate of Compliance ("SCOC"), disclosing ACS records.
On July 13, 2022, the People filed and served their second SCOC, disclosing Police Officer ("PO") Daquard's memobook.
On July 15, 2022, the People filed their Affirmation in Opposition to defendant's motion. On July 22, 2022, defendant filed a reply to the People's opposition papers.
On August 1, 2022, the court held an off-calendar discovery conference with the parties regarding the instant motion. At the conclusion of the conference, the court asked the People to submit a supplemental response to defendant's motion that included the information that was disclosed and discussed during this off-calendar discovery conference.
On August 9, 2022, the People submitted their Supplemental Affirmation in Opposition to defendant's motion.
Pursuant to CPL § 30.30(5), "any statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certificate of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of section 245.20." CPL § 30.30(5). For a COC to be valid, the People must disclose and make available "all known material and information subject to discovery." CPL § 245.50(1). The statute further requires that the People "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable" under the statute. Thus, in any challenge to the People's COC with their discovery obligations the court must determine whether the People exercised the requisite level of diligence in obtaining the materials and whether their COC was filed in good faith and was reasonable under the circumstances. See People v. Erby , 68 Misc. 3d 625, 128 N.Y.S.3d 418 (Sup. Ct. Bronx County 2020), People v. Knight , 69 Misc. 3d 546, 552, 130 N.Y.S.3d 919 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 2020), People v. McKinney , 71 Misc. 3d 1221(A), 2021 WL 2006850 (Crim. Ct. Kings County 2021), People v. Adrovic , 69 Misc. 3d 563, 130 N.Y.S.3d 614 (Crim. Ct. Kings County 2020).
Based on a review of the domestic incident report, defense counsel believes that there are photographs of the complainant's injuries that the People failed to turn over as required by the statute. Defendant's Aff. at ¶ 9; Defendant's Memo. of Law at 2. The People assert that, in response to their inquiries made on July 6, 2022, the arresting officer in this case maintained that there are no photographs. People's Memo. of Law at 7; People's Exhibit 2.
As part of automatic discovery, the People are required to turn over "all photographs and drawings made or completed by a public servant engaged in law enforcement activity, or which were made by a person whom the prosecutor intends to call as a witness at trial or a pre-trial hearing, or which relate to the subject matter of the case." CPL § 245.20(1)(h). Here, the court is satisfied that the People made diligent efforts to obtain any available photographs but that no such photographs exist.
The People assert that, based on their review of the information and documents in this case, there is no Police Officer ("PO") Branch associated with this case and, therefore, no memobook for such officer exits. People's Memo. of Law at 7. Defendant makes no mention of PO Branch's memobook in his motion.
The court is satisfied that the People made diligent efforts to obtain this memobook but that no such memobook exits.
The People assert that the defense is not entitled to materials related to defendant's Binghamton arrest because they do not relate to the subject matter of the instant case, and they contain no relevant information to the instant case. People's Memo. of Law at 16 and 22. The People further argue that the defense can easily obtain this information because it is defendant's own conviction, not a conviction of one of the People's witnesses. People's Memo. of Law at 22. Defendant does not raise this matter in any way as a basis for his challenge to the validity of the People's COC. As such, the court will not address this matter as a relevant factor in its determination of the instant motion.
Defendant argues that the People's late disclosure of PO Daquard's memobook invalidates their COC because PO Daquard participated in the intake of the complainant, as indicated in the domestic incident report, and that said memobook is part of initial discovery. Defendant's Memo. of Law at 6; Defendant's Exhibit A. The People argue that once they were made aware that PO Daquard's memobook was missing, they made diligent and good faith efforts to obtain and disclose said item to the defense. People's Memo. of Law at 8. The People further argue that their COC should not be invalidated due to this belatedly disclosed item because PO Daquard was a peripheral officer and there was no new information in his memobook. Id.
The court finds that the People exercised diligent and good faith efforts in disclosing PO Daquard's memobook. On March 3, 2022, the People emailed the New York City Police Department's ("NYPD") discovery liaison requesting all discovery material. People's Supp. Aff. at ¶ 4. After the defense informed the People that PO Daquard's memobook was missing, the People reached out to the NYPD on two separate dates requesting said item. People's Supp. Aff. at ¶ 12, 16-17. On July 13, 2022, the People received said memobook and disclosed it immediately upon receipt with the filing of their second SCOC. People's Supp. Aff. at ¶ 18. Consistent with the legislative history of Article 245, the statute "should not be construed as an inescapable trap for the diligent prosecutor who professionally, assiduously and in good faith attempts to comply with their new and extensive requirements under the discovery statute ..." People v. Georgiopoulos , 71 Misc. 3d 1215(A), 3, 2021 WL 1727831 (Crim. Ct. Queens County 2021). Thus, the delayed disclosure of the PO Daquard's memobook does not invalidate the People's initial COC.
Defendant argues that the People's COC and SOR should be deemed as being filed on June 2, 2022 (the 91st day), rather than on June 1, 2022 (the 90th day), because the documents were served after the close of business (i.e., 5:00 p.m.) on June 1, 2022, at 5:12 p.m. and, thus, could not have been actually filed with the court until the next day. Defendant's Aff. at ¶ 11; Defendant's Memo. of Law at 2-4. In response, the People assert that their submissions were properly filed with the New York City Criminal Court's Electronic Document Delivery System ("EDDS") on June 1, 2022, at 5:10 p.m. People's Memo. of Law at 4-7.
Pursuant to CPL § 30.30(1)(b), the People have ninety (90) days from defendant's arraignment to declare their readiness to proceed with trial. This section specifically counts time in terms of days and does not impose any particular hour by which filings must be made so long as they occur on the correct day. This court is unaware of any specific statutory requirement that a statement of readiness for trial must be made during business hours. If the Legislature wanted CPL § 30.30 to be counted in hours, as opposed to days, they would have specifically articulated that in the statute, as they did in CPL § 180.80. See CPL § 180.80 (). A comparison of CPL § 180.80 to its analogue, CPL § 170.70, which applies to misdemeanor complaints, reveals that the Legislature made a conscious decision to calculate time in terms of days under CPL § 170.70, as opposed to calculating time in terms of hours as required under CPL § 180.80. See CPL §§ 170.70, 180.80. The Legislature further specified in CPL § 170.70 that Sundays would not be included in its time calculation under this section and the Legislature added an additional twenty-four (24) hours in its time calculation under CPL § 180.80 if such action occurred on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. See CPL §§ 170.70, 180.80. No such specifications in terms of time calculation were included in CPL § 30.30. It is clear that if the Legislature intended for CPL § 30.30 to be calculated in terms...
To continue reading
Request your trial