People v. Perez ( 2022 )

People v Perez
2022 NY Slip Op 34767(U)January 12, 2022
County Court, Westchester County
Docket Number: Indictment No. 21-0490
Judge: Robert J. Prisco
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
COUNTY COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
------------------------------------------------------------------x
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
-against- DECISION & ORDER
EMMANUEL VALENTIN PEREZ,
Indictment No: 21-0490
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------x
ROBERT J. PRISCO, J.
Defendant EMMANUEL VALENTIN PEREZ is charged by Indictment Number 21-
0490 with one count of Manslaughter in the First Degree pursuant to Penal Law [PL] § 125.20 (1)
[Count One], one count of Criminal Use of a Firearm in the First Degree pursuant to PL § 265. 09
(1) (a) [Count Two], one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree pursuant
to PL§ 265.03 (3) [Count Three], one count of Attempted Assault in the First Degree pursuant to
PL§§ 110 and 120.10 (1) [Count Four] and one count of Assault in the Second Degree pursuant
to PL§ 120.05 (6) [Count Five]. The charges pertain to Defendant's alleged intent to cause serious
physical injury to another individual with a loaded firearm and causing the death of such individual
and his attempt to cause serious physical injury to a second individual with said firearm and
causing physical injury to such second individual. The above offenses are alleged to have occurred
in the vicinity of 126 Valley Street in the Village of Sleepy Hollow at approximately 9:35 p.m. on
June 28, 2021.
On August 23, 2021, Defendant was arraigned by the Honorable David S. Zuckerman on
the charges contained in Indictment Number 21-0490. Attached to the indictment is a Criminal
Procedure Law [CPL] § 710.30 (1) (a) notice regarding the People's intent to offer evidence of a
statement allegedly made by the defendant to a public servant, 1 five (5) CPL § 710.30 (1) (b)
notices signifying the People''s intent to offer testimony regarding observations of the defendant
either at the time or place of the commission of the offenses or upon some other relevant occasion
1
The CPL § 710.30 (I) (a) Notice pertains to oral and electronically recorded statements allegedly made by Defendant
to members of the Sleepy Hollow Police Department in Police Headquarters at approximately 4:29 p.m. on June 29,
2021. Regarding the substance of the alleged statements, reference is made to the "[d]isk [a]ttached."
1
, : . 1 2 2cn
.. :,TMY C. IDOMI
, ,.,·rvo r::;::-i,,<
[* 1]
·._.. ~ ,.·~ i,•·n``s``\~: :~,-~···-
by witnesses who have previously identified him as such, 2 and a Demand for Notice of Alibi
pursuant to CPL§ 250.20.
On S~ptember 16, 2021 the People filed a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to CPL
§ 245.50 (1) which includes a "Statement of Readiness," wherein "[t]he People confirm and
announce their readiness for trial on all counts charged."
Thereafter, Defendant filed a Notice of Motion and Affirmation, both dated November 11,
2021, seeking various forms of judicial intervention and relief.
On December 13, 2021, the People filed an Affirmation in Opposition and Memorandum
of Law, along with an unredacted certified copy of the stenographic transcript of the July 15, 2021
Grand Jury proceeding.
Additionally, the Court has been supplied with a copy of the People's Discovery Disclosure
Index pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 and 245.50, which includes but is not limited to disclosures
pertaining to Grand Jury testimony, exculpatory and impeachment information, and tangible
objects possessed by Defendant. The Court is also in receipt of the People's demand for reciprocal
discovery pursuant to CPL§ 245.20 (4) and a "USB" drive containing the Grand Jury exhibits.
After consideration of the above referenced submissions and the unredacted certified
stenographic transcript of the July 15, 2021 Grand Jury proceedings, the Court decides Defendant's
Motion as follows:
1. MOTION FOR RELEASE OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES TO DEFENDANT,
INSPECTION THEREOF, AND DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGES CONTAINED IN
INDICTMENT NUMBER 21-0490 DUE TO THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED.
Citing CPL § 210.30 (3), Defendant requests that the Court "direct the release of the Grand
Jury minutes to the Defendant for the purpose of formulating appropriate motions against the
Indictment" (see Point A (3), Pages 5-6, of Defendant's Affirmation). Additionally, "Defendant
requests that the Court inspect the Grand Jury Minutes ... for the purpose of determining whether
2
The CPL § 710.30 ( 1) (b) notices pertain to a photographic array identification that allegedly occurred at
approximately 8:31 p.m. on June 29, 2021 at the Sleepy Hollow Police Department and four (4) single photograph
identifications that allegedly occurred at approximately 12:34 a.m., 2: 15 a.m., 4:06 a.m. and 4:49 a.m. on June 29,
2021, at the same location.
2
[* 2]
the evidence before the Grand Jury was properly presented and legally sufficient to support the
charges in the Indictment and whether the District Attorney's legal instructions were valid and
sufficient" (see Point B (4), Page 6, of Defendant's Affirmation). Relying upon CPL §§ 210.20
(1) (a) and (b), 210.25 and 210.30, Defendant further moves "to dismiss the Indictment upon
insufficient evidence, improper presentation due to excessive leading, lack of testimonial capacity,
defective.charge grounds and for such other reasons as a full inspection of the Grand Jury minutes
may reveal" (see Point B (5), Page 6, and Point B (8), Page 9, of Defendant's Affirmation). Lastly,
Defendant requests that the Court review and evaluate a list of "potential errors or defects in the
Grand Jury presentation .. .in connection with this motion to inspect and dismiss" (see Point 6 (a)-
(r), Pages 7-8, of Defendant's Affirmation).
In their response, the People consent to an in-camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes
by the Court only and contend that the indictment is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see
Points A & B, Pages 1-3, of the People's Memorandum of Law), and that "Defendant has failed
to meet his high burden of showing the existence of any error in the grand jury proceeding which
rendered it defective" (see Points A & B, Pages 3-5, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
Initially, regarding Defendant's request for the Grand Jury minutes in their entirety, this
Court notes that CPL§ 245.20 (1) (b) provides for automatic discovery of "[a]ll transcripts of the
testimony of a person who has testified before a grand jury" (emphasis added). Similarly, CPL
§ 210.30 (3), which addresses motions to inspect grand jury minutes and is specifically cited by
Defendant in support of this request (see Point A, Page 1, of Defendant's Notice of Motion and
Point A (3), Pages 5-6, of Defendant's Affirmation), speaks only to the release of "grand jury
testimony (emphasis added)." Accordingly, as there exists no statutory authority for the release to
Defendant of those portions of the Grand Jury minutes that constitute colloquy or instructions and
as the People have complied with the discovery mandate of CPL§ 245.20 (1) (b) by providing the
defendant with the transcript of the testimony of the ten (10) witnesses who testified before the
Grand Jury, 3 the defendant's request for the Grand Jury minutes in their entirety is denied.
The Court has conducted an in-camera review of the entirety of the Grand Jury
3
ltem B of the Discovery Disclosure Index indicates that "[a]ll transcripts of persons who have testified before a grand
jury have been provided" to the defendant on September 8, 202 I via the "Pro Portal."
3
[* 3]
proceedings, having examined an unredacted certified copy of the stenographic transcript of the
July 15, 2021 presentation.
On July 15, 2021, prior to the commencement of the given sworn testimony, the People
specifically inquired of and confirmed with the foreperson that twenty (20) grand jurors were
present. The subsequent 20-0 vote to indict Defendant on the five charges presented for their
consideration satisfies this Court that the twenty (20) grand jurors who deliberated and voted on
the charges contained in Indictment Number 21-0490 were present throughout the one-day
presentation of the case.
"Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate
'whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted-
and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence-would warrant conviction'"
(People v Mills, l NY3d 269, 274-275 [2003], quoting People v Carroll, 93 NY2d 564,568 [1999];
see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523,525 [1998]; People v Jensen, 86 NY2d 248,251 [1995]; People
v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 114 [1986]; People v Booker, 164 AD3d 819, 820 [2d Dept 2018];
People v Hu/sen, 150 AD3d 1261, 1262 [2d Dept 2017], Iv. denied 30 NY3d 950 [2017]; People
v Flowers, 138 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2d Dept 2016]). Legally sufficient evidence is "competent
evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the
defendant's commission thereof' (CPL§ 70.10 (1); see People v Mills, l NY3d at 274; People v
Franov, 146 AD3d 978, 979 [2d Dept 2017]; People v Wisey, 133 AD3d 799, 800 [2d Dept 2015];
People v Ryan 125 AD3d 695, 696 [2d Dept 2015], Iv. denied 25 NY3d 1077 [2015]). "In the
context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes
charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Jessup, 90 AD3d 782, 783 [2d Dept
2011], quoting People v Bello, 92 NY2d at 526; see People v Ryan, 125 AD3d at 696; People v
Woodson, 105 AD3d 782, 783 [2d Dept 2013]). This Court's inquiry is "limited to 'whether the
facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every
element of the charged crimes,' and whether 'the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty
inference'" (People v Bello, 92 NY2d at 526, quoting People v Deegan, 69 NY2d 976,979 [1987];
see People v Pino, 162 AD3d 910, 911 [2d Dept 2018]).
Here, the evidence presented to the Grand Jury, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the People, was legally sufficient to establish and support the charges contained in Indictment
4
[* 4]
Number 21-0490.
A Grand Jury proceeding is "defective," warranting dismissal of the indictment, only where
the "proceeding ... fails to conform to the requirements of CPL Article 190 to such degree that
the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result" (CPL § 210.35 (5); see
People v Arevalo, 172 AD3d 891,892 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Williams, 171 AD3d 804,805 [2d
Dept 2019]). Dismissal of an indictment under CPL§ 210.35 (5) is an "exceptional remedy" that
"should ... be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or
errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the Grand Jury" (People v Huston, 88
NY2d 400,409 [1996]; see People v Williams, 171 AD3d at 805; People v Burch, 108 AD3d 679,
680 [2d Dept 2013], Iv. denied22 NY3d 1087 [2014]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670,671 [2d
Dept 2011], aff'd 22 NY3d 687 [2014]). In the case at bar, the Court finds that no such
wrongdoing, conduct or errors occurred.
While a prosecutor is required to instruct the grand jury on the law with respect to matters
before it (People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38 [1984]; People v Samuels, 12 AD3d 695,698 [2d Dept
2004]; see CPL § 190.25 (6)), "a Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of
precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law" (People v Ca/bud, Inc., 49
NY2d 389,394 [1980]; see People v Caracciola, 78 NY2d 1021 [1991]; People v Goetz, 68 NY2d
96, 115 [1986]; People v Valles 62 NY2d 36, 38 [1984]; People v Tunit, 149 AD3d 1110 [2d Dept
2017]; People v Burch, 108 AD3d at 680; People v Malan-Pomaeyna, 72 AD3d 988 [2d Dept
2010]). It is well settled that such instructions are sufficient so long as they provide "enough
information to enable [the grand jury] intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed
and to determine whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material elements
of the crime" (People v Calbuq, Inc.,_ 49 NY2d at 394-395; see People v Valles, 62 NY2d at 38;
People v Tunit, 149 AD3d at 1110-1111; People v Patterson, 73 AD3d 1215, 1215 [2d Dept 2010],
Iv. denied 15 NY3d 776 [2010]; People v Malan-Pomaeyna, 72 AD3d at 988).
Here, after an in-camera review of the unredacted certified copy of the stenographic
transcript of the Grand Jury presentation on July 15, 2021, this Court determines that the Grand
Jury proceeding was not defective and that the instructions given during the presentation were
legally sufficient and proper.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges
5
[* 5]
contained within Indictment Number 21-0490 is denied.
2. DEMAND TO PRODUCE; REQUEST FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Pursuant to CPL § 245.20, Defendant moves for an order "(d]irecting the District
Attorney ... to furnish the Defendant with Discovery and Inspection as to the item[ s] set forth in
the Demand to Produce Discovery and Request for Bill of Particulars" (see Point C, Pages 1-2, of
Defendant's Notice of Motion and Points C (9)-(10), Pages 8-9, of Defendant's Affirmation). 4
In response, the People "consent to discovery pursuant to CPL 245.20," oppose discovery
"to the extent it exceeds CPL Article 245," and assert that they "have (already] provided to
defendant substantial discovery" (see Point C, Page 6, of the People's Memorandum of Law). The
People further acknowledge "their continuing obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence that is
within their possession pursuant to Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 (1963]) and People v Fein (18
NY2d 162 (1966])," 5 state that "(t]o the extent such material becomes known and is in possession
of the people, it will be provided to the defendant ... (and represent that they] have or will comply
with their obligations under CPL 245.20 (1) (k), (1), and (p)" 6 (see Point C, Page 7, of the People's
Memorandum of Law). The People also advise that they will "provide under separate cover, a
copy of a Bill of Particulars" (see Point C, Page 7, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
Pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (1), the People served and filed a Certificate of Compliance
dated September 16, 2021, certifying that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable
inquiry to ascertain the existence 6f material and information subject to discovery, they have
disclosed and made available to Defendant all known material and information subject to
4
The Court notes that while defense counsel states that copies of the Request for Bill of Particulars and Demand to
Produce are annexed to the motion papers as "Exhibit A" (see Point C (9), Page 9, of Defendant's Affirmation), no
such documents are annexed to the motion papers provided to the Court. Further, Defendant's repeated reference in
his Affirmation to various sections of CPL Article 240 in support of his motion for discovery is interpreted as being
brought pursuant to CPL Article 245, which replaced Article 240, effective January 1, 2020.
5
The People also acknowledge their oblig~tion "to disclose the terms of any deal or agreement between the
government and any prosecution witness under the guidelines set forth in Giglio v United States (405 US 150 [1972])"
(see Page 7, Footnote 1, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
6
The Court notes that Item K of the Discovery Disclosure Index, which refers to "Exculpatory and Impeachment
Information" is checked off and direction is given to see the "Discovery Disclosure Addendum Pursuant to C.P.L.
§ 245.20 (I) (K)."
6
[* 6]
discovery. In addition, the People served and filed a Discovery Disclosure Index identifying the
material and information that was provided and made available to Defendant.
Accordingly, as the People have presumably sati_sfied the requirements of CPL § 245.50
(1) by providing the discovery required by CPL§ 245.20 (1), serving upon the defendant and filing
with the Court a Certificate of Compliance, and specifically identifying the material and
information provided, Defendant's request for discovery and production is denied as moot. If
Defendant has specific challenges or questions related to the Certificate of Compliance that was
served and filed by the People in this matter, such challenges or questions must be addressed by
motion (CPL § 245.50 (4)). If there are no specific challenges or questions regarding the
Certificate of Compliance, Defendant should have performed his reciprocal discovery obligations,
subject to constitutional limitations, no later than thirty (30) calendar days after being served
therewith (CPL§ 245.20 (4)).
Notwithstanding the above, CPL § 245.20 (2) directs the prosecutor to make a diligent,
good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material and information discoverable under CPL
§ 245.20 (1) and to cause such material or information to be made available for discovery where
it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody or control. If the People
subsequently learn of additional discoverable material or information, they must expeditiously
notify and disclose such material and information to the defense, including material or information
that became relevant to the case or discoverable based on reciprocal discovery received from the
defendant (see CPL § 245.60). In such case, they are also required to serve upon Defendant and
file with the Court a Supplemental Certificate of Compliance identifying the additional material
and information provided (CPL§ 245.50 (1)).
The People are respectfully reminded to remain cognizant of their discovery obligations
not only as required by Brady, Giglio, People v Geaslen, 54 NY2d 510 [ 1981 ], and their respective
progeny, but also as mandated by CPL Article 245. Specifically, CPL § 245.20 (1) (k) requires
that the prosecutor disclose "[a]ll evidence and information, including that which is known to
police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government's behalf in this case, that tends
to: (i) negate the defendant's guilt as to a charged offense; (ii) reduce the degree of or mitigate the
defendant's culpability as to a charged offense; (iii) support a potential defense to a charged
offense; (iv) impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness; (v) undermine evidence
7
[* 7]
of the defendant's identity as a perpetrator of a charged offense; (vi) provide a basis for a motion
to suppress evidence; or (vii) mitigate punishment" and such disclosure must occur expeditiously
upon its receipt, "whether or not such information is recorded in tangible form and irrespective of
whether the prosecutor credits the information."
Pursuant to CPL§ 245.20 (1) (1), the People must also disclose "a summary of all promises,
rewards and inducements made to, or in favor of, persons who may be called as witnesses, as well
as requests for consideration by persons who may be called as witnesses and copies of all
documents relevant to a promise, reward or inducement."
Accordingly, should the People ascertain the existence of Brady, Geaslen, or Giglio
material, or of any of the materials and information itemized in CPL § 245.20 (1) (k) and (1),
through their mandated diligent, good faith effort to do so or otherwise, they are directed to
expeditiously disclose the same upon its receipt.
As to Defendant's request for a Bill of Particulars, CPL § 200.95 (2) requires that "the
prosecutor shall, within fifteen days of the service of the request [for such] or as soon thereafter as
is practicable, serve upon the defendant or his attorney, and file with the court, the bill of
particulars." While the People have not served and filed a written statement which is titled a "Bill
of Particulars," all of the factual information that CPL§ 200.95 (1) (a) requires a Bill of Particulars
to specify is included within the factual portion of the People's Affirmation in Opposition (see
Pages 1-6) and the disclosures reflected within the served and filed Discovery Disclosure Index
(see People v Tije, 60 Misc3d 1208(A), 2018 NY Slip Op 51024(U) [Crim Ct, New York County
2018]; People v Mohamed, 58 Misc3d 1205(A), 2018 NY Slip Op 50001 (U) [Crim Ct, New York
County 2018]; People v Newton, 57 Misc3d 545, 549 [Crim Ct, New York County 2017]). N
Notwithstanding the above, as the People have consented to provide under separate cover,
a copy of a Bill of Particulars, they are directed to do so forthwith.
3. MOTION TO SUPRESS STATEMENTS.
Citing CPL § 710.60 (4) and People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 (1965), "[t]he Defendant
moves to suppress [his] statements or, in the alternative, requests a hearing to determine the
admissibility of such statements at trial, including their use on cross-examination" (see Point D
8
[* 8]
(31), Page 14, of Defendant's Affirmation). Specifically, Defendant contends that the alleged
statements "were the result of coercion and were involuntary within the meaning of C.P .L. Section
60.45" (see Point D (29), Pages 13-f4, of Defendant's Affirmation) and "were obtained in
violation of the standards set forth for custodial interrogation in Miranda v Arizona" (see Point D
(30), Page 14, of Defendant's Affirmation).
In response, "[t]he People consent to an evidentiary Huntley Hearing to determine whether
[Defendant's] statements were spontaneous and [thus] admissible for the People's direct case" (see
Point D, Page 8, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
Accordingly, on consent, Defendant's motion to suppress statements is granted to the
extent that a Huntley hearing will be conducted to determine the voluntariness and admissibility
of the noticed statements allegedly made by Defendant to members of the Sleepy Hollow Police
Department in Police Headquarters at approximately 4:29 p.m. on June 29, 2021.
4. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
While not addressed in his Affirmation, Defendant, citing Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643[1961], and Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979], moves to suppress the physical evidence
recovered in this matter and claims that there was an "[u]nlawful stop and arrest" (see Points E
and F, Page 2, of Defendant's Notice of Motion).
In response, the People consent to such hearings and contend that "the Court will find that
all evidence was legally and constitutionally recovered and admissible and the defendant's arrest .
was predicated upon probable cause" (see Point E, Page 9, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
Accordingly, upon consent, Defendant's motion for suppression of physical evidence is
granted to the extent that Mapp and Dunaway hearings will be conducted to determine the legality
of the evidence's recovery/seizure and its admissibility at trial.
5. RE~ERVATION OF RIGHTS TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS.
Defendant's request to make additional pre-trial motions (see Point E, Page, 14, of
Defendant's Affirmation) is granted to the extent that, if sought, he will be required to serve and
file an Order to Show Cause detailing the reason(s) why said motions were not brought in
9
[* 9]
..
conformity with the time provisions and motions practice set forth in CPL §§ 255.20 (1) and (2),
respectively.
However, notwithstanding the provisions of CPL §§ 255.20 (1) and (2), this Court will
"entertain and decide on its merits, at any time before the end of the trial, any appropriate pre-trial
motion based upon grounds of which the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been
previously aware, or which, for other good cause, could not reasonably have been raised within
the period specified in [CPL § 255.20 (1)] or included within the single set of motion papers as
required by [CPL § 255.20 (2)]" (CPL § 255.20 (3); see People v Wisdom, 23 NY3d 970, 972
[2014]; People v Marte, 197 AD3d 411,413 [1st Dept 2021]; People v Burke, 174 AD3d 915,915
[2d Dept 2019]; People v Milman, 164 AD3d 609, 610 [2d Dept 2018]).
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: White Plains, New York
January 12, 2022
10
[* 10]
To: HON. MIRIAM E. ROCAH
Westchester County District Attorney
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, New York 10601
Attn: Assistant District Attorney Perry P. Perrone
WILLIAM T. MARTIN, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Emmanuel Valentin Perez
108 Village Sq., Ste. 143
Somers, New York 10589
11
[* 11]