People v. Bautista-Hernandez ( 2021 )

People v Bautista-Hernandez
2021 NY Slip Op 34143(U)September 30, 2021
County Court, Westchester County
Docket Number: Ind. No. 21-0390
Judge: David S. Zuckerman
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.
•
FILED~
COUNTY COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER OCT 1 3 2021
----------------------------------x TIMOTHY C. IDONI
COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
-against- DECISION & ORDER
YORDANY BAUTISTA-HERNANDEZ, Ind. No.: 21-0390
Defendant.
------------------ --- -------- ---x
ZUCKERMAN, J.
Defendant stands accused under Indictment No. 21-0390 of
three counts of Manslaughter in the Second Degree (Penal Law
§125 .15 [l] ) , and three counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide
(Penal Law §125 .10). As set forth in the ·Indictment, it is
alleged that, on or about September 25, 2020, Defendant, in
Westchester _County, New York, recklessly, and with criminal
negligence, c_aused the death of three persons. By Notice of
Motion dated August 30, 2021, wi"th accompanying Affirmation and
Memorandum of Law, Defendant ·moves for omnibus relief. In
response, the People have submitted an Affirmation in.Opposition
with Memorandum of Law dated September 10, 2021.
The moti~ns are d~Jposed of as follows:
& DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION
Defendant' s motion for discovery is granted to the extent
provided for in Criminal Procedure Law Artie.le 245 and/or already
provided by the People. Defendant's motion-for identification of
[* 1]
a confidential informant is _denied, as such information is not
discoverable pursuant to CPL §245.20©. If any items set forth in
CPL Article 245 as discoverable have not already been provided to
Defendant pursuant to that Article, said items are to be provided
forthwith. Any party is granted leave, if required, to apply for
a Protective Order in compliance with CPL Article 245, upon
notice to the opposing party and any party affected by said
Protective Order. The People are directed to file a Certificate
. of Compliance with CPL Article 245 and the instant Order upon
completion of their obligations thereunder, if they have not
already done so. The People's cross-motion for reciprocal·
discovery is likewise granted to the extent provided for in
Criminal Procedure Law Article 245, and/or already. provided to
the People. The People are further reminded that any response to
a demand for a bill of particulars by Defendant shall adequately
inform Defendant of the substance of the alleged conduct, and in
all respects comply with CPL Article 245 and §200.95, within 15
days of the date of the request.
In addition, pursuant to Administrative Order 393/19, it is
ORDERED that the District Attorney and the Assistant
District Attorney responsible for the case, are re~ired to make
timely disclosure of information favorable to the defense as
required by Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; Giglio v United
States, 405 US 150 [1972]; People v Geaslen, 54 NY2d 510 [1981];
[* 2]
and their progeny under the United States and New York State
Constitutions and by Rule 3.8(b) of the New York State Rules of
Professional Conduct; and it is further
ORDERED, that the District Attorney and· the Assistant
District Attorney responsible for the case or, if the matter is
not being prosecuted by the District Attorney, the prosecuting
agency and its assigned representatives, have a duty to learn of
such favorable information that is known to others acting on the
government's behalf in the case, including the police, and are
therefore expected to confer with investigative and prosecutorial
personnel who acted in the case and to review all files which are
directly related to the. prosecution or investigation of this
I
case. For purposes of this Order, favorable information can
include but is not'limited to:
a) Information that impeaches the credibility of a
testifying prosecution witness, including (I) benefits, promises,
or inducements, express or tacit, made to a witness.. by a law
enforcement officiai or law enforcement victim services agency in
connection with giving testimony or cooperating in the case;
(ii) a witness's prior inconsistent statements, written or
oral;
(iii) a witness's prior convictions and uncharged criminal
conduct;
(iv) information that tends to show that a witness has a
[* 3]
motive to lie to inculpate the defendant, or a bias against
the defendant or in favor of the complainant or the
prosecution; and
(v) information that tends to show impairment of a witness's
ability to perceive, recall, or recount relevant events,
including impairment resulting from mental or physical illn~ss or
substance abuse;
b) Information that tends to exculpate, reduce the degree of
an offense, or support a potential defense to a charged offense;
c) · Information that tends to mitigate the degree of the
defendant's culpability as to a charged offense. or to mitigate
punishment;
d) Information that tends to · undermine evidence of the
defendant's identity as a perpetrator of a charged crime, such· as
a non-identification of the defendant by a witness to a charged
crime or an identification or other evidence implicating another
person in a manner that tends to cast doubt on the defendant's
guilt; and
e) Information that could affect in the defendant's favor
the ultimate decision on a.suppression motion; and it is further
ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant
District Attorney 'responsible for the case or any other agent
prosecuting the case is hereby advised of his/her duty to
disclose favorable information whether or not such information is
[* 4]
recorded in tangible form and irrespective of whether the
prosecutor credits the information; and it is further
ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant
District Attorney responsible for the case or any other agent
responsible for the prosecution of the case is directed that
favorable information must be timely disclosed in accordance with
the United States and New York State constitutional standards, as
well as CPL Article 245. Disclosures are presumptively "timely"
if they are completed no later than 30 days before commencement
of trial in a felony case and 15 days before commencement of
trial in a misdemeanor case. Records of a judgment of conviction
or a pending_ criminal action ordinarily are discoverable within
the time frame provided in CPL Article 245. Disclosures that
pertain to a suppression hearing are presumptively "timely" if
they are made no later than 15 days before the scheduled hearing
date; and it is further
ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant
District Attorney responsible for the case or any other agent
res·ponsible for the prosecution of the case is hereby reminded
and informed that his/her obligation to disclose is a continuing
one; and it is further
ORDERED, notwithstanding the foregoing, that a prosecutor
may apply for a protective order, which may be issued for good
cause, and CPL Article 245 shall be deemed to apply, with respect
[* 5]
to· disclosures required under this Order. Moreover, the
prosecutor may request a ruling from the court on the need for
disclosure. Only willful and deliberate conduct will con 9 titute
a violation of this Order or be eligible to result in personal
sanctions against a prosecutor; and it is further
ORDERED, that counsel for the defendant is required to:
a) confer with the defendant about his/her case and is
required to keep the defendant informed about all significant
developments in the case; and
b) timely communicate · any . and all plea offers to the
defendant and to provide him/her with reasonable advice about the
advantages and disadvantages of any such.plea offer including the
potential sentencing ranges that apply in the case;
'
c) where applicable, insure the defendant receives competent
advice concerning immigra.tion consequences as required under
Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 [2010] ;_
d) perform a reasonable investigation of the facts and the
law pertinen_t to the case (including, as applicable, visiting the
scene, interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing pertinent materials,
consulting experts; inspecting exhibits, reviewing all discovery
materials obtained from the prosecution, researching legal
issues, etc.) or, as appropriate, making. a reasonable
professional judgment not to investigate a particular matter;
e) comply with the requirements of the New York State Rules
[* 6]
of Professional Conduct regarding conflicts of interest, and when
appropriate, timely notify the court of a possible conflict so
that an inquiry may be undertaken or a ruling made;
f) possess or acquire a reasonable knowledge and familiarity
with criminal procedural and evidentiary · 1aw to ensure
constitutionally effective representation in the case; and
g) in accordance with statute, provide notices as specified
in CPL sections 250.10, 250.20 and 250.30, (e.g., a demand,
intent to introduce the evidence, etc.)
!h MOTION FOR A MAPP/DUNAWAY HEARING/TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF
A BLOOD TEST
Defendant moves to suppress all physical evidence which the
People seek to introduce against him at trial, including searches
of his vehicle and a phone, a blood seizure, and the results of
the blood test which followed the seizure, alleging that they
were recovered after a search that · was not based on probable
cause, were not consented to, nor conducted pursuant to VTL
§1194. The People, in their Affirmation in Opposition, state
that there was no· impropriety in the searches conducted and
seizures made and add, in particular, that any evidence taken
from Defendant's vehicte and cell phone, and the blood from his
person, were seized pursuant to a search warrant.
The results of a search conducted pursuant to a lawful
search or arrest warrant is not subject to a suppression hearing.·
[* 7]
People v .. Arnau, 58 NY2d 27 (1982). The court has reviewed the
affidavits in support of the search (and blood)
.
warrants, and
finds that they provided the issuing magistrate with ample
probable cause to support issuance of the warrants. Further,
this court reviewed the search orders and finds them to be proper
injall respects. Finally, the court notes that,. according to the
Voluntary Disclosure Form and People's Affirmations filed in this
action, the People have provided defense counsel with access to
the search warrants.
I
Regarding the blood seizure and test, the People assert that
Defendant consented to the collection procedure ·of the blood
sample. Consequently, the motion to suppress physical evidence
is granted to the extent that a pre-trial Mapp/Dunaway/VTL §1194
hearing is ordered to determine the propriety of the search and
seizure leading to law enforcement officers obtaining Defednant's
blood and subsequent testing. of same·.
Q_,_ MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT EVIDENCE/FOR A HUNTLEY
HEARING
Defendant moves, pursuant to CPL §710.20(3), ·to suppress
noticed statements. The People, in their Affirmation in
Opposition, state that there was no impropriety in gathering the
statements attributable to Defendant, but consent to a hearing on
the issue. Consequently, the motion to suppress noticed
statements is granted, to the extent that a Huntley hearing is
[* 8]
orc;lered to determine the propriety of. those statements.
!L_ MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE/FOR A WADE
HEARING.
Defendant moves, pursuant to CPL §710. 20 (3), to suppress·
identification evidence. The People, in their Affirmation in
Opposition, state that there was no identification procedure
involving Defendant. Consequently, . the motion to suppress
identification evidence is denied, with leave to renew at such.
time, if any, that the People seek to offer any such evidence.
E. MOTION TO INSPECT THE GRAND JURY MINUTES AND TO DISMISS
AND/OR REDUCE THE INDICTMENT
Defendant moves pursuant to CPL §§210. 20 (1) (b) and. (c).to
dismiss the indictment, or counts thereof, on the grounds that
the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient and
that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the meaning
of CPL §210.35. The Court has reviewed the minutes of the
proceedings ?efore the Grand Jury.
Pursuant to CPL §190.65(1), an indictment must be supported
by legally sufficient evidence which establishes that the
defendant committed the offenses charged. . Legally sufficient
evidence is competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would
establish each and every element of the offense charged and the
defendant's commission thereof (CPL §70.10 [1]); People v
Jennings, 69 NY2d 103 [1986]). "In the context of a grand jury
proceeding, legal sufficiency means_ prima facie proof of the
[* 9]
crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt." People v
Bello, 92 NY2d 523 (1998); People v Ackies, 79 AD3d 1050 (2 nd
Dept 2010). In rendering a determination, "[t]he reviewing
court's inquiry is limited to wh~ther the facts, if proven, and
the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof
of each element of the charged crimes. and whether the grand jury
could rationally have drawn the inference of guilt." Bello,
supra, quoting People v Boampong, 57 AD3d 794 (2 nd Dept 2008- -
internal quotations omitted) . The court notes that Defendant,
having previously been provided with a transcript of the Grand
Jury proceedings, has not asserted any specific objection
regarding the Grand Jury presentation.
A review of the minutes reveals that the evidence presented,
if accepted as true, would be legally sufficient to establish
every element of the offenses charged (see CPL §210.30[2].
·Accordingly, Defendant's. motion to dismiss or reduce for lack of
sufficient evidence is denied. With respect to Defendant's claim
that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the meaning
of CPL §210. 35, a review of the minutes ·supports a finding that a
quorum of the grand jurors was pre.sent during the presentation of
evidence and . at the time the district attorney instructed the
Grand Jury on the law, that.the grand jurors who voted to indict
heard all the "essential and critical evidence" ( see People v
Collier, 72 NY2d 298 [1988]; People v Julius, 300 ·AD2d 167 [1 st
[* 10]
Dept 2002], lv den 99 NY2d 655 (2003]), and that the Grand Jury
was properly instructed (see People v Calbud, 49 NY2d 389 (1980]
and. People v. Valles, 62 NY2d 36 (1984]). In making · this
determination, the Court does not find that release of such
portions of · · the Grand Jury minutes as have not already been
disclosed pursuant to CPL Article 245 to the parties was
necessary to assist the Court.
K.,_ MOTION FOR·SANDOVAL/VENTIMIGLIA/MOLINEUX HEARING
Granted, solely to the extent that
Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux hearings, as the case may be, shall
be held immediately prior to trial, as follows:
A. Pursuant to CPL §245.20, the People must notify the
Defendant, not less than fifteen days prior to the first
scheduled date for trial, of all specific instances of
Defendant's uncharged misconduct and criminal .acts of which the
.People have knowledge and which the People intend to use at trial
for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the Defendant, or
as substantive proof of any material issue in the case,
designating, as the case may_ be for each act or acts, the
intended use (impeachment or substantive proof) for which the act
or acts will be offered; and
B. Defendant, at -the ordered hearing, must then sustain
his burden of Tnforming the Court of the prior misconduct which
might unfairly affect him as a witness in his own behalf (see,
[* 11]
People v. Malphurs, 111 AD2d 266 [2 nd Dept. 1985]).
All other motions are denied:
Dated: White Plains, New York
September 30, 2021
A.J.S.C.
DARNELL D. CROSSLAND, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant
1200 Summer Street, Suite 202
Stanford, CT 06905
HON. MIRIAM E. ROCAH
District Attorney, Westchester County
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, New York 10601
BY: Daniel Flecha, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
[* 12]