People v. Mei
| Decision Date | 05 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 9081/2017 |
| Citation | 2023 NY Slip Op 50267 (U) |
| Parties | People of the State of New York v. Joanna Mei, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Unpublished Opinion
Assistant District Attorney Joseph I. Mancino, Esq., for the People of the State of New York
Mr Lawrence Fredella, Esq., for the defendant, Joanna Mei
Defendant Joanna Mei (hereinafter: defendant), is charged with the crimes of Murder in the Second Degree (Penal Law [hereinafter: P.L.] § 125.25[2]), and other related charges arising from allegations that on November 19, 2017 the defendant did set fire to 6709 11th Avenue, Kings County, causing death to Xi Lin Huang (hereinafter: Decedent Haung) and Feng Xia Xu (hereinafter: Decedent Xu). On August 30, and September 6, 2022, this Court conducted a combined Dunaway/Huntley hearing. The defendant sought to suppress statements made by the defendant related to this case, arguing that the defendant lacked the mental capacity required for a valid waiver of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, which the People seek to admit during the prosecution of the instant action.
In addition, the defendant moves this Court to reargue and dismiss the instant indictment, based upon the Court's Decision and Order of March 5, 2018, finding the instant indictment was based upon legally sufficient evidence and the Grand Jury proceeding was proper, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (hereinafter: C.P.L.) Article 190.
Finally, the defendant moves this Court for leave to file additional motions.
The People opposed the defendant's motions in their entirety.
CONSTITUTIONAL PRE
TRIAL HEARINGS
The People initially called three witnesses at the hearing: Fire Department of New York (hereinafter: F.D.NY) Lieutenant Vincent Lorenzo (hereinafter: Lt. Lorenzo), F.D.NY Fire Marshal Robert Cox (hereinafter: Marshal Cox), and New York City Police Department (hereinafter: N.Y.P.D.) Detective Fredrick Daughtry (hereinafter: Det. Daughtry). The defendant called one expert witness in response to the People's presentation of the evidence, Dr. Kate Termini, Ph.D. (hereinafter: Dr. Termini), a licensed clinical psychologist with a specialty in neuropsychology. On rebuttal the People called one additional expert witness, Dr. Kathy Yates, Ph.D. (hereinafter: Dr. Yates), a licensed clinical psychologist with a specialty in neuropsychology. I find the testimony of these witnesses to be credible, reliable and worthy of belief.
F.D.N.Y. Lieutenant Vincent Lorenzo testified as follows:
Lt. Lorenzo was a fire marshal assigned to the F.D.N.Y.'s Citywide South Command from February 2015 to April 2021 as an investigating fire marshal. This unit is responsible to investigate fires within certain portions of New York City, including Kings County. On November 9, 2017, at approximately 7:45 AM, Lt. Lorenzo responded to a three-story multi-dwelling building on fire at 6709 11th Avenue, Kings County. Upon arrival, Lt. Lorenzo observed firefighters operating at the location and approximately seven or eight members of the public on the street.
As he awaited the building being deemed safe for inspection, Lt. Lorenzo interviewed spectators outside the locus in quo. One of the individuals interviewed was the defendant, who stated that she lived in the building that was on fire. During this interview on the street, the defendant was not under arrest or otherwise in government custody, was not in handcuffs, and was free to leave at any time. While speaking with Lt. Lorenzo the defendant expressed concern and was curious about what was happening with her building, provided pedigree information and stated that she had left her apartment at approximately 6:00 AM. The defendant further stated that she did not observe anything unusual at that time and returned to the building when she saw smoke and heard sirens.
After speaking with the defendant, firefighters cleared the building for inspection and Lt. Lorenzo began his physical examination of the building and its interior.
F.D.N.Y. Fire Marshal Robert Cox testified as follows:
Marshal Cox was an investigating fire marshal from 2011 to 2019, and is now serving as a supervising fire marshal. In 2017, Marshal Cox was assigned to the F.D.N.Y.'s Special Investigations Unit, responsible for investigating large, multi-alarm fires and fires resulting in fatalities throughout the City of New York. On November 9, 2017, Marshal Cox responded to 6709 11th Avenue, Kings County, at approximately 8:00 AM. After observing and inspecting the locus in quo, Marshal Cox began interviewing witnesses and canvassing for surveillance video.
Marshal Cox interviewed Jin Chen, the owner of 6709 11th Avenue, in an adjoining building. Next, Marshal Cox proceeded to the N.Y.P.D.'s 68 Precinct (hereinafter: 68 Pct.) to interview additional witnesses.
Upon arrival at the 68 Precinct Detective Unit (hereinafter: 68 P.D.U.), Marshal Cox observed the defendant in the waiting area, outside of the detective squad office.As the defendant had been cleared as a suspect at that time by the police, the defendant was not in police custody, nor guarded by police, and was free to leave. Marshal Cox asked the defendant if she would go to an F.D.NY office to be interviewed about the building layout, as well as issues and upkeep of the building. The defendant agreed and was transported by fire marshals to their office. The defendant was not under arrest, nor in handcuffs during the drive from the N.Y.P.D.'s 68 Pct. to the marshal's office. The defendant was followed to the marshal's office by the defendant's aunt, who was present at the N.Y.P.D.'s 68 Pct. and who drove, in her own vehicle, to the marshal's office.
Once at the F.D.NY office, the defendant was taken to a large conference room, containing a large table and multiple chairs. During her time with the fire marshals, the defendant was periodically offered food, drink and the ability to use the restroom. Marshal Cox was joined by F.D.NY Fire Marshal Schmidt during the interview. The defendant was still not a suspect at this time, was not handcuffed and the marshals' firearms were secured outside the conference room in a supervisor's office during the interview. In addition, the defendant was free to leave, if she so chose. The defendant was not advised of her rights pursuant to Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (hereinafter: Miranda), because she was not a suspect, nor in custody, and only deemed a witness at that point. The defendant provided pedigree and general background information, answering questions appropriately with responsive answers. The defendant appeared to understand what was being asked and did not ask for clarification. The interview was conducted in the English language without issue and the defendant appeared calm during this portion of the interview.
Marshal Cox asked if the defendant would mind having an accelerant sniffing canine check her shoes to determine whether she walked through any accelerant at the fire. The defendant agreed, her shoes were removed and placed in the center of the conference room. When the canine entered the room, the defendant appeared nervous and stated that she did not like dogs. The canine indicated the presence of an accelerant on the defendant's shoes. After the canine alerted to the presence of an accelerant, the defendant stated: "All I did was kick over the garbage can, kick over the can." Hearing Transcript, dated August 30, 2022 (hereinafter: HT 3/30/22), Page: 26, Lines: 11-12. With that, the interview was suspended and the fire marshals consulted their supervisor as the defendant waited in the conference room.
Upon returning to the conference room the fire marshals advised the defendant of her rights pursuant to Miranda from a pre-printed form [1]. The defendant appeared to understand and further stated that she understood each right as read to her, checked "YES" on the form indicating that she understood the rights and did not request clarification from the marshals. After being advise of her rights, the defendant agreed to speak with the fire marshals and answered their questions. In addition, the defendant agreed to provide written statements and generated two hand-written statements [2] memorializing her account of what transpired. This interview at the fire marshals' office was not video recorded, as the facility lacks the equipment to do so. Upon completion of the defendant's written statements, the marshals transported the defendant back to the N.Y.P.D.'s 68 P.D.U. for a video-recorded interview.
N.Y.P.D. Detective Frederick Daughtry testified as follows:
Det. Daughtry was assigned to the N.Y.P.D.'s Brooklyn South Homicide Unit since 2015. On November 9, 2017, at approximately 8:00 AM, the detective responded to 6709 11th Avenue, Kings County, and observed a multi-dwelling residential building that had been on fire. Subsequently, at approximately 1:00 PM on that same day, Det. Daughtry was at the N.Y.P.D.'s 68 Pct. and interviewed the defendant. The interview was not recorded, nor was Miranda administered for the purpose of this interview, as the defendant was not a suspect and not in police custody at that time. N.Y.P.D. Detectives Pereria and Ducceschi, as well as Marshal Cox were present for the interview. The defendant was afforded the opportunity to use the restroom and offered food and drink. This interview lasted approximately one hour. After this interview, the defendant met with family members who were also at the N.Y.P.D.'s 68 Pct. and was then taken to a F.D.NY office for additional interviews, as Det. Daughtry continued his investigation into the fire.
Later that same day, the defendant returned to the N.Y.P.D.'s 68 Pct. with the Det. Pereria and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial