People v. Lucas ( 2022 )

People v Lucas
2022 NY Slip Op 34814(U)September 15, 2022
County Court, Westchester County
Docket Number: Indictment No. 71289-22
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
---------------------------------· ------- ;jj . : --------------------x
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NE``RK ,.
.
-agamst-
. 1;11!ED
.
SEP .l,'5-
·I
'.
DECISION & ORDER
SHAWN LUCAS,
.,~·wa,;,i;1 Indictment No: 71289-22
--
ROBERT J. PRISCO, J.
Defendant SHAWN LUCAS is charged by Indictment Number 71289-22 with Robbery in
the Second Degree pursuant to Penal Law [PL] § 160.10 (2) (b) [Count One], Criminal Possession
of a Weapon in the Third Degree _pursuant to PL§ 265.02 (1) [Count Two], Grand Larceny in the
Fourth Degree pursuant to PL§ 155.30 [Count Three], and Petit Larceny pursuant to PL§ 155.25
[Count Four]. The charges pertain to Defendant's alleged forcible theft of property from an
individual while possessing and displaying what appeared to be a revolver. The above offenses
• are alleged to have been committed by Defendant, who has a purported previous conviction for
Attempted Assault in the Second Degree, in the vicinity of 17 Highland Place in the City of
Yonkers, at approximately 7:54 p.m., on December 27, 2021. ·
On June· 10, 2022, Defendant was arraigned by this Court on the charges contained in
Indictment Number 71289-22. Attached to the indictment are an Information accusing Defendant
of having previously been convicted of Attempted Assault in the Second Degree in the County of
Westchester on or about March 1, 2007, a CPL § 710.30 (1) (a) Notice regarding the People's
intent to offer evidence of statements allegedly made by the defendant to members of the City of
Yonkers Police Department, 1 and the People's Demand for a Notice of Alibi pursuant to CPL
§ 250.20 (1).
A Notice of Motion, an Attorney's Affirmation in Support of Omnibus Motion (hereinafter
"Attorney's Affirmation"), and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Pre-Trial
1
The CPL § 710.30 (1) (a) notice pertains to oral statements that were allegedly recorded electronically and made by
Defendant in the vicinity of6 Wells Avenue in the City of Yonkers at approximately 10:15 p.m. on December 27,
2021.
1
[* 1]
Motions (hereinafter "Memorandum of Law"), all dated July 25, 2022, were filed by Defendant,
seeking various forms of judicial intervention and relief.
On August 12, 2022, the People filed with the Court via email an Affirmation in Opposition
and a Memorandum of Law. The People also provided the Court with an unredacted certified copy
of the stenographic transcript of the May 11, 2022 Grand Jury proceeding, along with copies of
the Grand Jury exhibits that were received in evidence.
After consideration of the above referenced submissions and the unredacted certified
stenographic transcript of the M_ay 11, 2022 Grand Jury.proceeding, the Court decides Defendant's
Motion as follows:
t MOTION FOR INSPECTION OF GRAND JURY MINUTES AND DISMISSAL OR
REDUCTION OF THE CHARGES CONTAINED IN INDICTMENT NUMBER 71289-22
DUE TO THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.
f
Citing CPL§§ 210.20 (1) (b), (1-a) and 210.30, Defendant requests that the Court inspect
the minutes of the Grand Jury proceeding and dismiss Indictment Number 71289-22 or certain
counts thereof "as not supported by legally sufficient evidence" (see Paragraph (a), Page 1, of
Defendant's Notice of Motion and Point I, Page 3; of Defendant's Memorandum of Law). 2
Defendant also requests inspection of the minutes of the Grand Jury proceeding to determine
whether the provided instructions were·legally sufficient and proper and whether the Grand Jury
proceeding was defective (see Point I (a)- (t), Pages 3-6, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law).
In their response, the People consent to an in-camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes
by the Court, contend that the indictment is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see Point A,
Pages 6-7, of the People's Memorandum of Law), oppose inspection thereof by Defendant (see
Point A, Page 6, of the People's Memorandum of Law), and assert 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 Point A, Pages 7-8, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
To the extent that Defendant is requesting the Grand Jury minutes in their entirety, 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, speaks only to the release of"grandjury testimony
2
Defendant also requests that the Court "detennine whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that
defendant ... was properly identified as the perpetrator of the alleged crimes" (see Point I, Page 3, of Defendant's
Memorandum of Law).
2
[* 2]
(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 five (5) witnesses who testified before the
Grand Jury, 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 proceeding,
having examined an unredacted certified copy of the stenographic transcript of the May 11, 2022
presentation.
On May 11, 2022, prior to the commencement of the given sworn testimony, the People
specifically inquired of and confirmed with the foreperson that twenty-two (22) grand jurors were
present. In addition, prior to submitting the charges for the Grand Jury's consideration and
providing instructions thereon, the People specifically inquired of and confirmed with the
foreperson that twenty-two (22) grand jurors had been present throughout the presentation.
Accordingly, the record establishes that the twenty-two (22) grand jurors who deliberated and
voted on the charges contained in Indictment Number 71289-22 were present throughout the one-
day presentation of the case.
"Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate
'whether th~ 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, 1 NY3d 269, 274-275 [2003], quoting People v Carroll, 93 NY2d 564, 568 [1999];
see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523,525 [1998]; People vJensen, 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 Hulsen, 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, 1 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 Castro, 202 AD3d 815, 816 [2d Dept
2022], quoting People v Bello, 92 NY2d at 526; see People v Addimando, 197 AD3d 106, 121 [2d
Dept 2021]; People v Ryan, 125 AD3d at 696; People'v Woodson, 105 AD3d 782, 783 [2d Dept
3
[* 3]
2013]; People v J_essup, 90 AD3d 782, 783 [2d Dept 2011]). 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 Castro, 202 AD3d at 816; People v Pino, 162 AD3d 910, 911 [2d Dept
2018]; People v Arcila, 152 AD3d 783, 784 [2d Dept 2017], lv. denied 30 NY3d 978 [2017]).
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
Number 71289-22.
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 pro·secutorial 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 JS. Atl. Dental, P.C., 202 AD3d 708, 709 [2d Dept 2022];
People v Addimando, 197 AD3d at 121; People v Williams, 171 AD3d at 805; People v Burch,
108 AD3d ·679, 680 [2d Dept 2013], Iv. denied 22 NY3d 1087 [2014]; People v Thompson, 81AD3d 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 Tunit, 149 AD3d 1110, 1110 [2d Dept
2017]; 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 Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389,394 [1980]; see People v Caracciola,
78 NY2d 1021, 1022 [1991]; People v Batashure, 75 NY2d 306,311 [1990]; People v Goetz, 68
NY2d 96, 115 [1986]; People v Valles 62 NY2d 36, 38 [1984]; People v Tunit, 149 AD3d at 1110;
People v Castaldo, 146 AD3d 797,798 [2d Dept 2017]; People v Burch, 108 AD3d at 680; People
v Malan-Pomaeyna, 72 AD3d 988 [2d Dept 201 O]). 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
4
[* 4]
· evidence to establish the material elements of the crime" (People v Calbud, 1nc., 49 NY2d at 394-
395; see People v Valles 62 NY2d ~t 38; People v Ruvalcaba, 187 AD3d 1553, 1554 [4th Dept
2020], lv. denied 36 NY3d 1053 [2021]; People v Tunit, 149 AD3d at 1110-1111; People v
Patterson, 73 AD3d 1215, 1215 [2d Dept 2010], lv. denfod 15 NY3d776 [2010]; People vMalan-
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 May 11, 2022; 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 or reduce the
charges contained within Indictment Number 71289-22 is denied.
2. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS. ·
Citing CPL Article 710 and .sections thereof, Defendant moves to suppress "evidence of
statements made by the defendant" (see Paragraph (b), Page 1, of Defendant's Notice of Motion
and Point iI, Page 7, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law). In the alternative, Defendant requests
. that the Cciurt conduct a "Huntley hearing" (see Paragraph (b), Page 1, of Defendant's Notice of
Motion). Specifically, Defendant contends that the "statements were made involuntarily and in
. . .
violation of the defendant's rights.under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U~ited
States Constitution, Article I, Section 6 of the New York Constitution and CPL 60.45 (2)" (see
Point II, Page 7, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law). Defendant further moves pursuant to CPL
§ 71020 (4), "to suppress all evidence, including tangible property, identification evidence and
any other statements of defendant, which were obtained as a result of or due to the ... unlawfully
obtained statement: .. [as] 'fruits of the poisonous tree"' (see Point II, Page 7, of Defendant's
Memorandum of Law).
As to Defendant's claim that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated, the Peopl.e contend.
that "Defendant's motion to suppress ·the noticed statements [on this ground] should be denied
following a hearing pursuant to People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 (1965) and CPL 710.60 (4)" (see
Point B, Page 11, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
Regarding Defendant's Sixth Amendment violation claim, the People again argue that
Defendant's motio.n should be denied because "defendant has failed to provide any facts in support
thereof' and that "at the time defendant made his statements, no accusatory in·strument had been
5
[* 5]
fil_ed, no attorney actually entered the case, nor did defendant invoke his right to counsel" (see
Point B, Pages 14-15, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
With respect to Defendant's Fourteenth Amendment violation claim, Defendant does not
specify the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that he is referring to and the People do not
address Defendant's claim. Rather, the People address a Fourth Amendment violation claim that
was not raised by the defendant in, his papers (see Point B, Pages 9-11, of the People's
Memorandum of Law).
As the People have impliedly consented to a hearing to address Defendant's claim of a
Fifth Amendment violation, Defendant's motion to suppress statements is granted to the extent
that a hearings pursuant to People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965], will be conducted to determine
the voluntariness and admissibility of the noticed statements allegedly made by Defendant to
members of the Yonk~rs Police Department at approximately 10:15 p.m. on December 27, 2021.
3. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Citing CPL Article 710, Mapp v Ohio; 367 US 643 [1961], and Dunaway v New York, 442
US 200 [1979], Defendant moves fo suppress any "tangible property seized from [him] and any
items, property or statements derived therefrom as such seizure occurred in violation of rights
secured to [him] under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York" (see
Paragraph (c), Page 1, of Defendant's Notice of Motion). Specifically, Defendant argues that
"there was insufficient probable cause for the stop and search of the defendant" and that "[a]t no
time, did the defendant validly consent to a search of his person or property, or to a removal of
such property" (see Point III, Page 8, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law and Paragraph 5, Page
2, of Attorney's Affirmation). In the alternative, Defendant requests that the Court conduct pretrial
.
Dunaway and Mapp hearings (see Point III, Page 8, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law andI
Paragraph 5, Page 2, of Attorney's Affirmation).
In response, the People assert that Defendant's motion should be denied as he has failed to
put forward sworn allegations of fact in support of his claim, that he lacks standing to contest the
recovery of the "SNR .357 revolver imitation firearm," and that the physical evidence in this case
was recovered lawfully (see Point C, Pages 16-18, of the People's Memorandum of Law).
Upon the issues raised by Defendant, his motion to suppress physical evidence is granted
to the extent that Mapp and Dunaway hearings will be conducted to determine whether the physical
6
[* 6]
evidence in this matter was lawfully recovered/seized.
4. MOTION FOR SANDOVAL AND VENTIMIGLIA HEARINGS.
Pursuant to People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 (1974], and People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d
350 (1981], Defendant requests hearings to determine "the scope of cross-examination of the
defendant regarding so-called acts of misconduct" and "to test the admissibility of the evidence of
so-called uncharged crimes and/or prior similar acts of the defendant which the People intend to
introduce on their direct case or case-in-chief' (see Paragraph (d), Page 2, of Defendant's Notice
of Motion and Point IV, Page 9, of Defendant's Memorandum of Law).
In response, the People acknowledge their Sandoval and Ventimiglia obligations and
...
consent to hearings on same if such disclosure is made (see Point D, Page 19, of the People's
Memorandum of Law). The People also indicate that should they "seek to introduce defendant's
prior bad acts on their direct case, the People will inform defense counsel and the Court and request
a hearing before introducing such Molineux evidence" (see Point D, Page 19, of the People's
Memorandum of Law).
CPL§ 245.20 (3) (a) provides, in substance and pertinent part, that "[t]he prosecution shall
disclose to the defendant a list of all misconduct and criminal acts of the defendant not charged in
the indictment, which the prosecution intends to use at trial for purposes of impeaching the
credibility of the defendant." To the extent that the People seek to use any of Defendant's prior
· acts of misconduct or criminality on their direct case as substantive proof of any material issue in
the case, CPL§ 245.20 (3) (b) likewise obligates "[t]he prosecution [to] disclose to the defendant
a list of all misconduct and criminal acts of the defendant not charged in the indictment, which the
·prosecution intends to use at trial [for such purpose]." Lastly, CPL § 245.20 (3) further requires
that "the prosecution shall designate whether it intends to use each listed act for impeachment
and/or as substantive proof"
As the People have concededly not yet disclosed to the defendant a list of his acts of
misconduct and criminality which the prosecution intends to use at trial for purposes of impeaching
his credibility or as substantive proof of any material issue in the case, and designated their
intended use thereof, this Court will not order the requested Sandoval and Ventimiglia hearings at
the present time. Should the People seek to use at trial any prior acts of misconduct or criminality
of the defendant for CPL§ 245.20 (3) (a) or (b) purposes, they are directed to disclose to Defendant
a list of all such acts of misconduct and criminality and to designate the intended purpose of each
7
[* 7]
listed act. Pursuant to CPL § 245.10 (1) (b), the People "shall perform [these] supplemental
· discovery obligations as soon as practicable but not later than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to
the first scheduled trial date" (emphasis added). If the People do so, Defendant may renew his
application to preclude the People's use of such acts of misconduct or criminality at trial or, in the
alternative, request a hearing thereon to determine the admissibility thereof. If the People fail to
do so, rio use of such acts will be permitted· at trial.
5. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS.
Defendant's request to make additional pre-trial motions (see Page 2 of Defendant's
Notice of Motion and Page 10 of Defendant's Memorandum of Law) 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 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 DeI?t 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 Dedsion and Order of this Court.
Dated: White Plains, New York
September 15, 2022
8
[* 8]