Opinion
18050078
08-23-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Keith SCOTT, Defendant.
Beth Gordon, Assistant District Attorney, for Plaintiff Joseph Goubeaud, Mount Vernon, for Defendant
Beth Gordon, Assistant District Attorney, for Plaintiff
Joseph Goubeaud, Mount Vernon, for Defendant
David Otis Fuller Jr., J.
The People have filed a motion with a memorandum of law to consolidate two actions in this proceeding. In response, the defendant has filed an Affirmation in Opposition.
On May 9, 2018, after the police stopped the defendant for allegedly using a mobile device while driving with a suspended license, they arrested him for the mobile device infraction [ VTL) Section 1225-c(2)(a) ] and Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle, [ ( VTL Section 511 -1 (a) ]. The police also claimed that he was combative while being placed under arrest and charged him with Resisting Arrest (PL Section 205.30). The police added a further charge of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the 7th degree (PL Section 220.03). All four charges were signed by Sgt. Abelardo D. Bautista.
The defendant was arraigned on the above charges on June 19, 2018. While attempting to fingerprint the defendant, the police alleged that he became combative. They charged him with Disorderly Conduct (PL Section 240.20), Obstructing Governmental Administration (PL Section 195.05) and Resisting Arrest (PL Section 205.30). All three charges were signed by Det. Charles Weinstein.
The three additional charges did not arise out of the same alleged occurrence supporting the first four charges. The officer for the first four charges was different from the officer for the later three. The times and places were different. There is no indication that the testimony will overlap in the trials of the two cases.
Where there are charges in two or more accusatory instruments against the same defendant and consolidation is sought, the applicant must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the offenses charged are joinable in accordance with CPL Section 200.20(2)(b) which provides that two offenses are joinable when,
"Even though based upon different criminal transactions, such offenses, or the criminal transactions underlying them, are of such nature that either proof of the first offense would be material and admissible as evidence in chief upon a trial of the second, or proof of the second would be material and admissible as evidence in chief upon a trial of the first."
The statute provides that where two offenses, although constituting different criminal transactions, are such that the proof necessary to convict under the second charge would be material as evidence in chief upon the trial of the first charge, the two are properly joinable People v. Johnson , 64 AD2d 140,141, aff'd, 48 NY2d 925. On this record, proof in support of the first set of charges would not be relevant and admissible as tending to show defendant's guilt in the second set of charges or vice versa. The facts in the two sets of charges are far from being "inextricably intertwined," as the People contend. Moreover, an inference of propensity for resisting arrest could improperly arise from the trial of both cases together.
Accordingly, the motion to consolidate all charges for a single trial is denied.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.