People v. Suprenant

• Decision Date: 10 September 2020
• Docket Number: CR-0507-20,CR-0438-20
• Citation: 130 N.Y.S.3d 633,69 Misc.3d 685
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Jason A. SUPRENANT, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

69 Misc.3d 685

130 N.Y.S.3d 633

PEOPLE of the State of New York,

v.Jason A. SUPRENANT, Defendant.

CR-0507-20

CR-0438-20

City Court, New York, City of Glens Falls.

Decided on September 10, 2020

Hon. Jason M. Carusone, Warren County District Attorney, Robert P. McCarty, Esq., of counsel

Robert Knightly, Esq., for the defendant

Gary C. Hobbs, J.

Procedural and Factual Background

On or about July 10, 2020, the above named defendant was arraigned in this Court on charges of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree [ Penal Law § 145.00 ] (Court Case No.0438-20) and Petit Larceny [ Penal Law § 155.25 ] (Court Case #0507-20). The defendant was represented at his arraignment by the Warren County Public Defender's Office, Carline Barnes, Esq., of counsel. The defendant's case was adjourned to August 6, 2020 and, on the record, Ms. Barnes announced that defense was accepting delays pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 and 245 for the period of the adjournment. The People then filed separate Certificates of Compliance for each charge, and provided copies of the Certificates to defense counsel. The Certificate of Compliance for the Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree Charge is dated April 3, 2020, while the Certificate of Compliance for the Petit Larceny charge is dated May 22, 2020. By email dated July 16, 2020, as a result of a conflict of interest, attorney Robert Knightly was assigned to represent the defendant.

The Criminal Mischief charge alleges that, on March 15, 2020 at about 8:59 p.m., the defendant did intentionally damage a sign belonging to Radici Kitchen and Bar located at 26 Ridge Street, Glens Falls, by and repeatedly striking the sign causing damage to the sign. The Misdemeanor Complaint is supported by two supporting depositions of James Humphreys, an employee of Radici Kitchen and Bar, together with a a CPL 710.30 Notice which alleges that on March 15, 2020, the defendant made a statement to GFPD Officer Samantha Smith that "I hit a sign. Is that what this is about?" It is alleged that the chalkboard sign was broken to pieces. The Petit Larceny charge alleges that the defendant did knowingly and unlawfully steal $599.91 from the Glens Falls National Bank by withdrawing said amount from his account, and that just prior to his withdrawals, he made 8 ATM night deposits with empty envelopes and $1.30 in cash, and these deposits were falsely represented as containing a total of $2,401.50. The defendant then allegedly withdrew a total of $600.00 over five separate ATM withdrawals for a total loss of $599.91. The Misdemeanor Complaint is supported by a supporting deposition of Wendy Nolan, Physical Security Analyst at the Glens Falls National Bank, together with the checking activity report for the defendant's checking account, and surveillance photographs allegedly of the defendant at the bank.

On August 6, 2020, the defendant appeared with Robert Knightley, Esq. At that appearance, a plea offer was orally made on the record by Assistant District Attorney Robert McCarty, which was rejected by defense counsel. Mr. Knightley objected to the People's Certificate of Compliance, indicating that the defendant's criminal history was not provided. The People requested a written motion, and Hon. Nikki Moreschi directed defense counsel to file a written motion outlining the defendant's objections to the People's Certificate of Compliance.¹ The matter was placed on for August 25, 2020, for the defendant to file a written motion outlining his objections to the People's Certificate of Compliance.

On August 21, 2020, defense counsel filed a letter motion with this Court dated August 18, 2020, objecting to the People's Certificate of Compliance. In his written motion, the defendant alleges that the Certificate of Compliance is dated April 3, 2020, and therefore it "cannot apply to the charge of Petit Larceny that occurred on April 24, 2020."² The defendant further objected that the People identified potential witnesses, Glens Falls Police Officers Zachary Tanner and Samantha Smith, and identified that these officers have disciplinary records with their police agencies, but the disciplinary records were not produced. The defendant further objects that Warren County Sheriff Officers James Neal and Matthew Oswald were identified as potential witnesses, but whether or not they had disciplinary records was not disclosed. The defendant asserts that the disciplinary records of police officers involved in the arrest or investigation are discoverable, especially since Civil Rights Law § 50-a was repealed on June 12, 2020. The defendant requests that this Court "dismiss the People's Certificate of Compliance as illusory ... and charge the relevant time periods under CPL 30.30 to the People." Finally, the defendant asserts that this Court's record from the July 10, 2020, arraignment demonstrates that defense counsel never accepted the discovery or speedy trial time.

On August 21, 2020, the People filed a letter response to the defendant's motion. In their response, the People note that the date on the Certificate of Compliance is merely the date the Certificate was prepared, not the filing date. Mr. McCarty further indicates that the People filed and served a separate Certificate of Compliance for each charge pending against the defendant. With respect to the disciplinary records of the Glens Falls Police Officers, Tanner and Smith, the People assert that the Glens Falls Police Department "maintains personnel records and will make copies available upon a request made to that agency in writing ... or by phone ... [and these] disclosures will be made in accordance with Public Officers Law §§ 86, 87." The People further assert that defense counsel accepted CPL speedy trial and discovery time from July 10, 2020 through August 6, 2020, and that "prior and current executive orders renders this [speedy trial] argument moot."

On August 25, 2020, the parties appeared for oral argument on the defendant's motion. At the oral argument, the People asserted that the defense counsel could contact the Glens Falls Police Department to obtain copies of Officer Smith and Tanner's disciplinary records and that disclosure of the existence of the records was sufficient. They further assert that they have disclosed the existence of any disciplinary records known to exist. Defense counsel asserts that the obligation to provide disclosure of police disciplinary records is on the People, and the defendant should not have to seek copies of these records by FOIL request or otherwise from police agencies. Defense counsel further objected that the People had not disclosed criminal history records for the listed civilian witnesses. The People maintain that no such records exist to be provided. This Court adjourned this case to September 10, 2020, for a decision on the defendant's motion.

The issues before this Court include: (1) whether CPL 245.20 requires the People to both disclose the existence of police disciplinary records and also produce copies of the disciplinary records or can the People disclose the existence of disciplinary matters against an Officer and provide a method for defense counsel to obtain those records directly from the police agency; (2) whether the People's Certificates of Compliance were filed in good faith or are they illusory; (3) if the People's Certificates of Compliance are illusory, what is the appropriate remedy; and (4) what, if any, speedy trial time is chargeable to the People on these criminal charges.

In deciding the Defendant's motion, this Court takes judicial notice of the official recording of the defendant's proceedings in this Court, and judicial notice of Executive Order No. 202.8.

Conclusions of Law

Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature substantially expanded the disclosure requirements of both the People and the defendant in criminal cases by repealing CPL article 240 and enacting CPL Article 245. See ; Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, CPL 245.10. This new pre-trial statutory discovery procedure "evinces a legislative determination that the trial of a criminal charge should not be a sporting event where each side remains ignorant of facts in the hands of the adversary until events unfold at trial. Broader pre-trial discovery enables the defendant to make a more informed plea decision, minimizes the tactical and often unfair advantage to one side, and increases to some degree the opportunity for an accurate determination of guilt or innocence." People v. Copicotto , 50 N.Y.2d 222, 226, 428 N.Y.S.2d 649, 406 N.E.2d 465 (1980).

Pursuant to CPL 245.20(1), the People are obligated to provide "automatic" disclosure to the defendant of the items listed. By "automatic" disclosure, CPL 245.20 mandates that the defendant is no longer obliged to "demand" discovery and, instead, the People are obligated to provide disclosure of the listed items regardless of a defense "demand," and they must do so normally within a short period after arraignment on an accusatory instrument. See ; Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, CPL 245.10.

The "automatic discovery" provision of CPL § 245.20(1)(a)-(u) provides a non-exclusive list of items required to be disclosed to a defendant. This obligation includes "all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control." See ; People v. Gonzalez , 68 Misc.3d 1213A, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 50924(U), 2020 WL 4873901 [Sup. Ct. Aug. 19, 2020], quoting, CPL § 245.20[1] (emphasis added). Exempt from this automatic disclosure is information that is subject to a protective mandate granted by statute [e.g. CPL 245.20(1)(c) and (d) concerning the identity of a confidential informant or the identity of an undercover officer or information precluded by court order [ CPL 245.70 ] and the prosecutor's "work product" [ CPL 245.65 ]. A prosecutor's ...