People v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 08 June 1989
• Citation: 151 A.D.2d 528,542 N.Y.S.2d 665
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Thomas RYAN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 665

542 N.Y.S.2d 665

151 A.D.2d 528

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Thomas RYAN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

June 8, 1989.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BROWN, KUNZEMAN and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Motion by the defendant for a change of venue of his trial on Suffolk County Indictment No. 2470/81 from Suffolk County to another county to be designated by this court.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and after having heard the parties on oral argument, it is,

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

The defendant has moved pursuant to CPL 230.20(2) for a change of venue of his trial on Suffolk County Indictment No. 2470/81, on the ground that it has been established, at the completion of jury selection, that he cannot obtain a fair trial in Suffolk County. The charges against the defendant arise out of his participation along with three codefendants Robert Brensic, Michael Quartararo, and Peter Quartararo in the brutal murder of John Pius in 1979.

This crime in which the 13-year-old victim died, was highly publicized during the course of the original trials which led to the conviction of all four defendants on charges, inter alia, of murder in the second degree. Following the convictions, the case continued to draw considerable media attention as a result of the fact that the convictions of three of the defendants, including Ryan, were overturned, and new trials were ordered (People v. Brensic, 70 N.Y.2d 9, 517 N.Y.S.2d 120, 509 N.E.2d 1226; People v. Ryan, 121 A.D.2d 34, 509 N.Y.S.2d 545, vacated upon reargument 134 A.D.2d 300, 520 N.Y.S.2d 528; Quartararo v. Fogg, 679 F.Supp. 212).

The defendant argues that because of the extensive publicity which has attended this case over the last 10 years, including the publicity concerning this retrial, it is impossible for him to receive a fair trial in Suffolk County. In support of his application, he argues that a substantial number of the potential jurors questioned during voir dire had to be disqualified because they had formed an opinion based upon a prior knowledge of the case, and that, further, a significant number of those remaining had prior knowledge of the case, although they expressed the view that they could remain fair and impartial.

We disagree with the defendant's contention that there is "reasonable cause to believe that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had" (CPL 230.20[2] in Suffolk County. There is no bright-line test which requires a change of venue based solely upon the fact that a fixed percentage of the veniremen have expressed a preconceived opinion about the case (see, People v. McClary, 150 A.D.2d 631, 541 N.Y.S.2d 503 [2d Dept., 1989]; People v. Boudin, 97 A.D.2d 84, 469 N.Y.S.2d 89). Rather, what is required is an examination of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the pretrial publicity has so permeated the community as to render it impossible to obtain a fair and impartial trial (see, Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589; People v. McClary, supra; People v. Boudin, supra ). We are satisfied from the record before us that the publicity which has attended this case has not so permeated the community of Suffolk County so as to prevent the defendant from receiving a fair and impartial trial. This is particularly true in light of the fact that more than half the jurors questioned, according to the...