People v. MartinezPeople v. Martinez
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
---------X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
-against-
MATEO MARTINEZ,
Defendant.
---------X
FILED
AUG 2 3 2023
TIMOTHY C. IDONI
COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
DECISION & ORDER
Indictment No. 71205-23/002
ROBERT J. PRISCO, J.
Defendant MATEO MARTINEZ is charged by Indictment Number 71205-23/002 with two counts of Attempted Assault in the Third Degree, as a Hate Crime, pursuant to Penal Law [PL] §§ 110.00, 120.00 (1) and 485.05 (1) (a) and (b) [Counts Six and Seven], one count of Attempted Assault in the Third Degree pursuant to PL §§ 110.00 and 120.00 (1) [Count Eight], one count of Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree pursuant to PL § 240.30 (3) [Count Nine], and one count of Harassment in the Second Degree pursuant to PL § 240.26 (1) [Count Ten]. In sum and substance, the charges pertain to Defendant‘s alleged intentional selection of and attempt to commit physical injury to an individual, in whole or in substantial part, because of a belief or a perception regarding the national origin or ancestry of such person. It is alleged that the charged offenses occurred in the vicinity of 185 Main Street, in the Village of Ossining, at approximately 3:23 a.m., on September 9, 2022.
On May 15, 2023, Defendant was arraigned in the Westchester County Court on the charges contained in Indictment Number 71205-23/002. Attached to the Indictment are three (3)
On July 5, 2023, the Court received, via email, Defendant‘s Notice of Motion, an Affirmation in Support of Motion (hereinafter “Affirmation in Support“), and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Omnibus Motion (hereinafter “Memorandum of Law“), seeking various forms of judicial intervention and relief.
On July 6, 2023, the People served and filed, via email, a Supplemental Certificate of Compliance, which states that the Grand Jury minutes 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 August 9, 2023, the Court received the People‘s Affirmation in Opposition and 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:
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 D, Page 3, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law), contend that the indictment is supported by legally sufficient evidence (Id.), 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. at Page 4).
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 in Indictment Number 71205-23/002 were present throughout the one-day presentation thereof.
“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 71205-23/002.
A Grand Jury proceeding is “defective,” warranting dismissal of the indictment, only where the “proceeding...fails to conform to the requirements of
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 71205-23/002 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 pretrial hearings “to determine which, if any prior bad acts, convictions, vicious or immoral acts will be admitted into evidence to impeach the defendant‘s credibility should [he] elect to testify” (see Point 3, Page 1, of Defendant‘s Notice of Motion, and Page 1 of Defendant‘s Memorandum of Law). Further, Defendant contends that, “[s]hould the prosecution intend to offer direct evidence of any alleged uncharged crimes or bad acts of the defendant, ostensibly for the purpose of bolstering the proof of some element of the crimes charged in this indictment, a pre-trial hearing should be held to determine the propriety of such an offer” (see Page 1 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 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 SUPPRESS STATEMENTS.
Defendant seeks suppression of the statements noticed pursuant to
In response, the People “consent to a narrowly tailored Huntley hearing, after which his motion to suppress should be denied” (see Point E, Page 7, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law).
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 FOR DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE AND TO DEEM THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE INVALID AND THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY.
Defendant moves to “[c]hallenge the People‘s Declaration of Readiness since the People have not turned [over] the Grand Jury minutes” and “all police reports” (see Point 5, Pages 1-2, of Defendant‘s Notice of Motion, and Page 4 of Defendant‘s Affirmation in Support).
In response, the People assert that Defendant‘s motion should be denied because they “have fulfilled their statutory discovery obligations in every way and have timely served all discovery material and information in their possession” (see Point F, Page 19, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law). The People have also provided the Court with descriptions of the materials and information that have purportedly been provided to Defendant pursuant to the People‘s continuing duty to do so pursuant to
With respect to the Grand Jury minutes, the People contend that, because Defendant was not in custody at the time of the arraignment or of the filing of the indictment, they were initially afforded thirty-five (35) days for the service of such upon the defendant (see
Here, the People contend that they received the minutes of the grand jury proceeding on July 6, 2023, and that they disclosed such to the defendant through the discovery portal system that same day (see Point F, Page 20, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law). As the indictment was filed on May 8, 2023, the People assert that “the minutes were disclosed within the statutory time period, as no trial date has yet been set in this matter” (Id.).
As to the disclosure of any police reports, the People claim such documents “were provided to [Defendant] before the filing of the first certificate of compliance on May 16, 2023” (see Point F, Page 20, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law).
Pursuant to
However, notwithstanding the mandates of
In determining the validity of the Certificate of Compliance in this case, this Court has looked at the People‘s efforts to meet their discovery obligations and finds them sufficient, agreeing that “good faith, due diligence, and reasonableness under the circumstances are the touchstones by which a certificate of compliance must be evaluated” (People v Marin, 74 Misc3d at 1042, quoting People v Perez, 73 Misc3d at 177; see People v Cajilima, 75 Misc3d at 441; People v Henry, 74
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the People‘s statement of readiness was not illusory and Defendant‘s motion seeking invalidation of the People‘s Certificate of Compliance is denied.
5. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS.
Defendant‘s request to make additional pre-trial motions (see Point 6, Page 2, 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
Defendant requests that any hearings conducted pursuant to these motions be completed “at least two weeks in advance of trial” (see Page 2 of Defendant‘s Memorandum of Law).
Defendant‘s motion for pre-trial hearings to be conducted at least two weeks before trial is denied. There are currently no “unusual circumstances here presented” which would require this Court to order that such pre-trial hearings be held at least that many days before the trial (see People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463, 466 [1973]).
Notwithstanding the above, should the defendant seek a transcript of the minutes of any pretrial hearing and the “request for [such is made] prior to its conclusion” (People v Sanders, 31 NY2d at 467; see People v Coleman, 81 NY2d 826, 827 [1993]; Matter of Eric W., 68 NY2d 633, 636 [1986]; People v Griffin, 98 AD3d 688, 689-690 [2d Dept 2012], lv. denied 20 NY3d 932 [2012]; People v Wray, 225 AD2d 718, 719 [2d Dept 1996], lv. dismissed 88 NY2d 1025 [1996]), he will then be afforded a reasonable opportunity to obtain and review the same before trial.
7. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Citing
With respect to the physical evidence that was allegedly recovered, although not addressed by the People,
Consequently, Defendant‘s motion is denied without the need for an evidentiary hearing (see People v Finn, 215 AD3d at 1180-1181; People v Cunningham, 194 AD3d 954, 955 [2d Dept 2021], lv. denied 37 NY3d 991 [2021]; People v Massey, 186 AD3d 1716, 1717 [2d Dept 2020]; People v Rose, 178 AD3d 1091, 1092-1093 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Robinson, 118 AD3d 1028, 1028 [2d Dept 2014], lv. denied 24 NY3d 1046 [2014]; People v Smith, 69 AD3d 657, 657 [2d Dept 2010], lv. denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]).
8. MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY.
Defendant moves to suppress the noticed identifications on the ground that such “identification[s] [were] dubious at best” (see Page 4 of Defendant‘s Affirmation in Support). In the alternative, Defendant requests hearings pursuant to United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967], and Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979] (Id.).
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 H, Page 23, of the People‘s Memorandum of Law). As to the two (2) identifications made by grand jury witnesses from dashcam video surveillance, the People contend that such identifications do not constitute an identification procedure and therefore, notice was not required (Id. at Pages 23-24). The People also contend 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 24). 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 25).
Based upon the issues raised by the parties, Defendant‘s motion to suppress is granted to
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: White Plains, New York
August 22, 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
JAY C. SHERMAN, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Mateo Martinez
30 State Street
Ossining, New York 10562