People v. MartinezPeople v. Martinez
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- RICHARD MARTINEZ, Defendant.
DECISION & ORDER
Indictment No. 71205-23/001
ROBERT J. PRISCO, J.
Defendant RICHARD MARTINEZ is charged by Indictment Number 71205-23/001 with one count of Attempted Assault in the First Degree pursuant to
On May 15, 2023, Defendant was arraigned in the Westchester County Court on the charges contained in Indictment Number 71205-23/001. Attached to the Indictment is an Information accusing Defendant of having previously been convicted in the Westchester County Court of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree in violation of
On July 6, 2023, the People served and filed, via email, a Supplemental Certificate of Compliance, which states that the Grand Jury minutes and exhibits were provided to defense counsel. Within the Supplemental Certificate of Compliance is a “Statement of Readiness,” wherein “[t]he People confirm and announce their readiness for trial on all counts charged.”4
On July 25, 2023, the Court received, via email, Defendant‘s Notice of Motion, an Affirmation and a Memorandum of Law, seeking various forms of judicial intervention and relief.
On August 9, 2023, the Court received the People‘s Affirmation in Opposition and a Memorandum of Law in response to Defendant‘s motion for omnibus relief.
The Court is also in receipt of an unredacted certified copy of the stenographic transcript of the Grand Jury proceeding dated April 26, 2023, along with copies of the Grand Jury exhibits that were received in evidence.
After consideration of the above referenced submissions and unredacted certified stenographic transcript, the Court decides Defendant‘s Motion as follows:
1. MOTION FOR INSPECTION OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES AND DISMISSAL OR REDUCTION OF THE CHARGES CONTAINED IN INDICTMENT NUMBER 71205-23/001 DUE TO THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED.
Defendant moves for “[i]nspection and reduction or dismissal of the Indictment pursuant to
Citing
In their response, the People consent to an in-camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes by the Court (see Point C, Page 2, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law), contend that the indictment is supported by legally sufficient evidence (Id. at Page 3), 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” (Id.). The People contend there was no basis upon which to charge the defense of justification, as “[t]he videos in this case show that defendant did not act in self-defense” (Id. at Page 6), and “the evidence shows, unequivocally, that defendant was the initial aggressor, not Pareja” (Id. at Page 9). The People further contend “Pareja‘s use of pepper spray did not constitute deadly force (neither subjectively nor objectively)” (Id. at Page 12). Finally, the People claim that “should this Court find that defendant‘s belief in the need to use deadly physical force was both subjectively and objectively reasonable and that Pareja‘s administration of pepper spray constituted deadly physical force, a justification defense was still unwarranted as defendant had a duty to retreat (
To the extent that Defendant is requesting the Grand Jury minutes in their entirety,
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 April 26, 2023 presentation.
On April 26, 2023, prior to the commencement of the given sworn testimony, the People specifically inquired of and confirmed with the foreperson that twenty-three (23) grand jurors were present. As the presentation of this matter took place without interruption or recess, the Court is satisfied that the twenty-three (23) grand jurors who deliberated and voted on the charges contained
“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, 1 NY3d 269, 274-275 [2003], quoting People v Carroll, 93 NY2d 564, 568 [1999]; see People v Edwards, 36 NY3d 946, 947 [2020]; People v Deleon, 34 NY3d 965, 966 [2019]; People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 525 [1998]; People v Booker, 164 AD3d 819, 820 [2d Dept 2018]; People v Pino, 162 AD3d 910, 910-911 [2d Dept 2018]; People v Hulsen, 150 AD3d 1261, 1262 [2d Dept 2017], lv. 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” (
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 71205-23/001.
A Grand Jury proceeding is “defective,” warranting dismissal of the indictment, only where the “proceeding ... fails to conform to the requirements of
While “the People maintain broad discretion in presenting their case to the grand jury and need not...present all of their evidence tending to exculpate the accused” (People v Mitchell, 82 NY2d 509, 515 [1993], citing People v Lancaster, 69 NY2d 20, 25-26 [1986], cert. denied 480 US 922 [1987]; see People v Moses, 197 AD3d 951, 952-953 [4th Dept 2021], lv. denied 37 NY3d 1097 [2021]; People v Morel, 131 AD3d 855, 859-860 [1st Dept 2015], lv. denied 26 NY3d 1147 [2016]; People v Goldston, 126 AD3d 1175, 1177 [3d Dept 2015], lv. denied 25 NY3d 1201 [2015]; People v Pickens, 60 AD3d 699, 703 [2d Dept 2009], lv. denied 12 NY3d 928 [2009]), “a prosecutor should instruct the Grand Jury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution” (People v Jimenez, 189 AD3d 882, 884 [2d Dept 2020], aff‘d 39 NY3d 74 [2022], quoting People v Grant, 113 AD3d 875, 876 [2d Dept 2014]; see People v Tunit, 149 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2d Dept 2017]; People v Wilson, 228 AD2d 708, 709 [2d Dept 1996]). “The failure to charge justification constitutes reversible error only when the defense is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence - not by any view of the evidence, however artificial or irrational” (People v Jimenez, 189 AD3d at 884, quoting People v Rivers, 300 AD2d 63, 64-65 [1st Dept 2002]; see People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]; People v Forde, 140 AD3d 1085, 1087 [2d Dept 2016], lv. denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016]; People v Torres, 252 AD2d 60, 65 [1st Dept 1999], lv. denied 93 NY2d 1028 [1999]). While the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant in determining whether the evidence supports such a defense (see People v Enoksen, 175 AD3d 624, 625 [2d Dept 2019], lv. denied 34 NY3d 1016 [2019]; People v LaRoche, 162 AD3d 684, 685 [2d Dept 2018]; People v Tunit, 149 AD3d at 1111; People v Samuels, 12 AD3d 695, 698 [2d Dept 2004]), dismissal of an indictment is not warranted when based solely upon the “mere allegation” from a
Viewing the grand jury evidence in the light most favorable to Defendant in the case at bar, this Court finds that there was no reasonable view of such evidence to support a justification charge.
“With respect to the defense of justification under
“However, the Penal Law further provides that, for purposes of the defense of justification under
Here, the alleged victim testified that Defendant‘s “demeanor was [ ] very aggressive” when he approached, that the defendant “seemed to have a closed fist“, and that it “look[ed] like [Defendant] was holding something” (see Page 69, Lines 24-25, and Page 70, Lines 2-4, of the Grand Jury transcript dated April 26, 2023).5 The victim further testified he “saw that this individual had the intention of hitting [him] by the way that [he] looked at him ... [a]nd then, seconds thereafter, he lunged at [the victim],” at which time the victim “took a step back and felt an immediate hit on [his] arm, followed up by extreme pain” (Id. at Page 70, Lines 5-10). The victim testified that he carries “[pepper] spray for self-defense,” that he used it on the defendant, “but it really had no effect on [Defendant]” (Id. at Page 71, Lines 2-10). The victim explained that he pepper sprayed the defendant “before” Defendant stabbed him because “he was already lunging at [the victim]” (Id. at Page 93, Lines 1-3 and 17-20).
The dashcam surveillance video depicting the area in front of 185 Main Street, in the Village of Ossining, which was received in evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 1, fails to support Defendant‘s contention that the victim was the initial aggressor. While the video does show that the victim pepper sprayed the defendant, it also depicts Defendant immediately lunging at the victim afterward and becoming the initial aggressor when he employs deadly physical force against the victim by stabbing him.
Further, while “there appears to be no appellate authority in New York addressing whether a noxious chemical spray - by whatever name it is marked - constitutes a dangerous instrument”6 (People v Sandel, 61 Misc3d 843, 847 [Sup Ct, New York County 2018]),
Accordingly, while the victim appears to be the initiator of physical force, Defendant was the first person in the encounter to use deadly physical force, i.e., the initial aggressor, thereby rendering the defense of justification inapplicable.
Moreover, unlike the defendant in People v Samuels, 12 AD3d 695 [2d Dept 2004], who provided testimonial evidence before the Grand Jury supporting her justification defense, the Grand Jury in this case did not hear any testimony that would have supported a justification charge. Not only were there no witnesses with direct knowledge of the incident who testified in support of Defendant‘s contention, but the defendant himself, who clearly had such knowledge of the incident and of any circumstances that might have warranted such instructions, chose not to exercise his right to testify before the Grand Jury (see People v Mitchell, 82 NY2d at 515, citing People v Lancaster, 69 NY2d at 26; People v Morel, 131 AD3d at 860).
Thus, there was no reasonable view of the evidence presented in the Grand Jury warranting an instruction on justification and the integrity of the Grand Jury was not impaired by the People‘s failure to so instruct.
Further, 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
Here, after an in-camera review of the unredacted certified copy of the stenographic transcript of the Grand Jury presentation on April 26, 2023, 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 71205-23/001 is denied.
2. MOTION FOR SANDOVAL AND VENTIMIGLIA HEARINGS.
Relying on People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974], and People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 [1981], Defendant requests pre-trial hearings “to determine which, if any, prior bad acts, convictions, vicious or immoral acts will be admitted into evidence to impeach [Defendant‘s] credibility should he elect to testify” (see Point 2, Page 1, of Defendant‘s Notice of Motion, and
In response, the People acknowledge their Sandoval and Ventimiglia obligations and consent to hearings on same if such disclosure is made (see Points A and B, Page 1, 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 [pursuant to People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]], the People will inform defense counsel and the Court and request a hearing before introducing such Molineux evidence” (Id.).
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 impeaching his credibility or as substantive proof of any material issue in the case, nor 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
3. MOTION TO STRIKE THE PEOPLE‘S CPL 710.30 STATEMENT NOTICES AND TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS.
Citing
Citing
In response, the People claim that Defendant‘s motion to strike the People‘s statement notices should be denied since the notices provide “the time, place, and manner in which they were given and, when applicable, also provide the specific file name of [the] location where the video footage of defendant can be viewed” (see Point D, Page 15, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law). The People further claim that, as “defendant has moved to suppress the statements referenced in the notices ... [he] effectivity waive[d] any claim of deficiency in the People‘s notices” (Id.). Finally, the People “consent to a narrowly tailored Huntley hearing, after which his motion to suppress should be denied” (see Point E, Page 17, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law).
As the People‘s notices are in conformity with the statutory requirements of
However, as the People have consented to a hearing to address Defendant‘s claims regarding the voluntariness of his alleged statements, Defendant‘s motion to suppress his statements is granted to the extent that hearings pursuant to People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965], and Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979], will be conducted to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of the noticed statements.
4. MOTION TO STRIKE THE PEOPLE‘S CPL 710.30 IDENTIFICATION NOTICES AND TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY.
Citing
Defendant further moves to suppress “the alleged identification[s] and all fruits of such identification[s], since [the] identification[s] [are] inadmissible at trial because of an improperly made previous identification of the defendant” (see Point 4, Pages 2-3, of Defendant‘s Notice of Motion). Specifically, Defendant claims “[t]he identifications are not reliable because they were the product of unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures” and “[t]he identification[s] [are]
In response, the People contend that the “[p]olice lawfully arrested defendant ... and, therefore, any identification of defendant should not be suppressed on this ground” (see Point F, Page 27, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law). With respect to the first two identifications, the People allege that “Pareja and Roldan spontaneously pointed out defendant, who was walking in front of police headquarters, to the desk officer, as the man who stabbed Pareja,” and “[t]hereafter, police arranged to take Pareja and Roldan to where defendant was stopped in order to re-confirm the identification” (Id. at Pages 27-28). The People aver that the pointing out and subsequent show-up identifications of defendant were not unduly suggestive, and that “defendant‘s motion should be denied after a hearing” (Id. at Page 27).
With respect to the identifications made by multiple grand jury witnesses from dashcam video surveillance, the People contend that such identifications do not constitute identification procedures and therefore, notice was not required (see Point F, Page 29, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law). The People also suggest that “all identifications of defendant from dashcam video surveillance footage were confirmatory in nature,” and that “defendant‘s identity was never in question because the individuals who identified defendant from [said footage] knew defendant well enough from the incident that led to Pareja‘s stabbing and thus their prior familiarity with him rendered the identifying witnesses impervious to suggestion” (Id. at Page 30). Finally, the People aver that “[t]he individuals who identified defendant also had an independent source for any in-court identification,” as “Pareja and Roldan, who identified defendant, personally observed defendant during the commission of the crimes for which they identified him” (Id. at Page 31).
As to the identification notices, because they are in conformity with the statutory requirements of
However, based upon the issues raised by the parties, Defendant‘s motion to suppress is granted to the extent that a hearing pursuant to United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967], and Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979], will be held in connection with the six (6) noticed identifications. As the People contend that the witnesses were so familiar with Defendant so as to negate any possibility of suggestiveness, the Court will also conduct a hearing pursuant to People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 454 [1992], in connection with such identifications.
5. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS.
Defendant‘s request to make additional pre-trial motions (see Point 5, Page 3, of Defendant‘s Notice of Motion) 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
However, notwithstanding the provisions of
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: White Plains, New York August 23, 2023
HONORABLE ROBERT J. PRISCO
County Court Judge
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 Catalina Blanco Buitrago
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY Attorney for Defendant Richard Martinez 150 Grand Street-Suite 100 White Plains, New York 10601 Attn: Katie D. Wasserman, Esq.