People v. Patten
Decision Date | 10 June 2011 |
Docket Number | CR07282B-2010 |
Parties | The People of the State of New York, v. Derek Patten, Defendant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The People of the State of New York are represented by:
Assistant District Attorney Daniel Grusenmeyer, of counsel to
The Honorable Kathleen Rice, District Attorney for the County of Nassau, State of New York
Long Beach Office, District Court Bureau
The defendant, Derrick Patten, is represented by:
Christopher Graziano, Esq.
The defendant has been charged by information with Riot in the Second Degree, a violation of Penal Law §240.05. The defendant now moves for an order dismissing the information as facially insufficient or, alternatively, precluding the People from questioning the defendant at trial regarding any prior convictions. The People oppose the motion and the defendant submits a reply.
In the information, it is alleged that on August 1, 2010, in the County of Nassau, the defendant, The information is subscribed by Long Beach Police Officer Brett Curtis and is based upon personal knowledge, the source of which is described as follows: "Your deponent[']s review of the video Back of Pine Box' and the statements of Police Officers Robert Fales and Michael Garofalo whose supporting deposition[s] are attached hereto and made a part hereof."
Police Officer Robert Fales's supporting deposition reads as follows:
Police Officer Michael Garofalo's supporting deposition reads as follows:
Pursuant to CPL §100.15(1), a facially sufficient information must contain an accusatory part and a factual part. The accusatory part must designate the offense charged, setting forth every element thereof (see CPL §100.15[2]; People v. Hall, 48 NY2d 927[1979]). The factual part must contain "a statement of the complainant alleging facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges", which is based either upon the complainant's personal knowledge or upon information and belief (CPL §100.15[3]). The factual part, together with any supporting depositions, must also contain non-hearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged (see CPL §100.40[1]; People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354 [2000]), and must provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense (see People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]).
In his motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency, the defendant contends that the police officers' observations of the video(s) referenced in the information and the supporting depositions constitute impermissible hearsay. In support of such contention, the defendant relies heavily upon People v. Allison, 21 Misc 3d 1108A(Dist. Ct. Nassau County 2008), and People v. Schell, 18 Misc 3d 972 (Crim. Ct. Richmond County 2008).
In People v. Allison, supra, the defendant was charged by information with Petit Larceny in connection with her alleged engagement in unauthorized markdowns at her cashier's station in the department store at which she worked. The factual portion of the information was subscribed by a police sergeant and was based upon information and belief, the source of which was the supporting deposition of Christina Stempfel, another employee of the department store. In her supporting deposition, Ms. Stempfel stated that, after a loss prevention supervisor brought to her attention a receipt with unauthorized markdowns, she observed the defendant, through prerecorded surveillance video, conduct unauthorized markdowns on three occasions.
In granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient, the court noted that Ms. Stempfel did not attempt to "lay an appropriate foundation for the video tape she viewed". The court indicated that if Ms. Stempfel had contemporaneously observed the alleged markdowns either in person or through video monitoring, it would have deemed her description of the defendant's actions as "facts of an evidentiary character" as required by CPL 100.15(3). The court also suggested that the People could have submitted an affidavit from "appropriate individuals authenticating the videotape upon which Ms. Stampfel relied, establishing that the videotaping truly and accurately depicted what was before the camera on the given dates, that it was not altered in any way and establishing a proper chain of custody" (People v. Allison, supra). Relying on People v. Schell, supra, the court concluded that since the People failed to properly authenticate the videotape, Ms. Stempfel's observations of such videotape constituted hearsay, warranting dismissal of the accusatory instrument (see People v. Allison, supra; People v Schell, supra [ ]).
This Court disagrees with the analysis in Allison and Schell. First, observations of avideotape are not hearsay.1 Indeed, "one who personally observes the content of a videotape can give sworn testimony about his observations without violating the hearsay rule" (People v. Lambert, 2002 NY Slip Op 50278U [Crim. Ct. Queens County 2002]). Second, contrary to the court's apparent conclusion in People v. Allison, "facts of an evidentiary character" are not only those facts that would be admissible at trial. This Court construes the requirement of CPL 100.15(3) of alleging "facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges" to merely require the deponent to make nonhearsay allegations of fact which show the basis for the conclusion that the defendant committed the crime[s] charged (see generally People v. Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100 [2010]). While these allegations of fact cannot be conclusory in nature (see id.; People v. Dumas, 68 NY2d 729 [1986]), they need not necessarily be admissible at trial and thus, an evidentiary foundation need not be laid for the purposes of the supporting deposition.2
Relating the above to the instant circumstances, "there should be no hearsay impediment to the inclusion in an information of what a police officer observes with his own eyes and ears when he views a videotape" (see People v. Lambert, supra).3 As such, this Court rejects defendant's argument that the information must be dismissed based upon Allison and Schell.
However, this does not end the inquiry. This Court must review the information and the supporting depositions in order to determine whether the information contains factual allegations of an evidentiary character demonstrating reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime of Riot in the Second Degree.
In the instant matter, it is evident that Police Officer Curtis's only knowledge of the defendant's alleged commission of the crime comes from his observation of a video he identifies only as "Back of Pine Box". Police Officer Curtis does not indicate that he has any knowledge of the time, date, or location of the events depicted in the video.
In their supporting depositions, Police Officers Fales and Garafalo allege that they were at the scene of a fight on August 1, 2010 in the vicinity of the rear parking lot of Pine Towne Houses. These officers subsequently viewed a video they identify...
To continue reading
Request your trial