People v. Mongan
| Citation | 171 N.Y.S.3d 797 |
| Decision Date | 05 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 1926/2022 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. James MONGAN a/k/a "Jimmy", Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
GURDA, BRADY & ASSOCIATES, Attorney for Defendant, 41 Dolson Avenue, P.O. Box 578, Goshen, New York 10924
ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Attorney for the People, 255 Main Street, Goshen, New York 10924
Defendant James Mongan a/k/a "Jimmy" moves for an order, pursuant to § 245.30[2], granting defense counsel and defendant access to the alleged crime scene to inspect, photograph and/or measure the crime scene and directing that the condition of the crime scene remain unchanged in the interim. The People oppose this application, arguing that such will further traumatize the complaining witness and the defendant either has the information he seeks or can gather it through less intrusive alternative means. Defendant further moves, pursuant to CPL § 245.30[3], for an order directing the complainant, GR, to provide the People access to her cell phone for the purpose of making copies of text message exchanges between herself and her then boyfriend Robert Carey during the period of March 8, 2022 through March 10, 2022, and that copies of said text message exchanges be provided to defense counsel.
The defendant is charged with one count of Burglary in the First Degree in violation of New York State Penal Law ("NYS PL") § 140.30 -2, one count of Assault in the Third Degree in violation of NYS PL § 120.00-1, and one count of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree in violation of NYS PL § 145.00-1. The People allege that defendant knowingly and unlawfully entered the dwelling of GR with the intent to commit a crime therein. He caused damage to a wooden front door and/or a wooden bathroom door, and he caused injury to GR by assaulting her. GR's injuries included bruising and swelling to her arms and legs, as well as substantial pain in her right arm, hand and fingers.
Defendant asserts he has been living for two years in the apartment building where the incident occurred, and that the location where the incident took place "may be" a common area which is used by tenants of the building to access the laundry room and/or for routine ingress and egress of the apartment building. Defendant further alleges the GR "may have" arrogated to herself the area that she now claims to be her apartment, thereby excluding other lawful tenants of the building without the legal right to have done so. Defendant claims his presence is necessary, in addition to his attorney, because he has historical knowledge of the layout of the apartment building, which is crucial to understanding the crime scene.1
Defendant further moves, pursuant to CPL § 245.30[3], for an order directing GR to provide the People access to her cell phone for the purpose of making copies of text message exchanges between herself and her then boyfriend Robert Carey during the period of March 8, 2022 through March 10, 2022, and that copies of said text message exchanges be provided to defense counsel. Defendant asserts that GR provided a supporting deposition, which identified that she was texting her boyfriend about the incident as it was occurring. Defendant alleges the content of those statements support his theory that he was simply seeking to enter a common laundry area, as opposed to GR's dwelling. The People have not formally opposed defendant's request, other than to request that the time period be limited in scope to approximately 30 minutes prior to the incident and 30 minutes after the defendant was removed from the scene.
A defendant may move for a court order to access a crime scene or other premises relevant to the subject matter of the case, so that counsel for the defendant may be granted a reasonable opportunity to inspect, photograph, or measure such crime scene or premises [ CPL § 245.30(2) ].2 In determining whether to grant an application for such access, "the court shall consider defendant's expressed need for access to the premises including the risk that defendant will be deprived of evidence or information relevant to the case, the position of any individual or entity with possessory or ownership rights to the premises, the nature of the privacy interest and any perceived or actual hardship of the individual or entity with possessory or ownership rights, and the position of the prosecution with respect to any application for access to the premises" [ CPL § 245.30(2) ].
Access to the premises may be denied "when the probative value of access to such location has been or will be preserved by specified alternative means" [ CPL § 245.30(2) ]. Defendant seeks access to the crime scene, which includes access to GR's private living area where she continues to reside with her boyfriend. The People refer to a letter submitted by GR wherein she states that she is severely traumatized by the incident and that she is "uncomfortable" with the defendant's lawyer coming to her residence. She further asserts it is "irrefutable" that the defendant broke into her residence, not a common area, which can be corroborated by the landlord and other tenants.3 The People further argue that numerous photographs and a video recording of a portion of the incident and the area in question at the time in question was provided to the defendant in discovery.
In considering the defendant's expressed need for access to the premises, including the risk that defendant will be deprived of evidence or information relevant to the case, this Court finds that defendant already has the information he claims is relevant to the case: he has lived at the location for two years. The defendant has failed to establish that his expressed need for access to the scene outweighs the victim's privacy rights in her own home.4 The defendant alleges that the incident occurred in a common area, not in her home. Defendant has failed to identify how the discovery provided is insufficient to substantiate his claim, especially...
To continue reading
Request your trial