Opinion
Index No. 22/70077
04-02-2022
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. TAIRUS WHITE-EDNEY, Defendant.
NICHOLAS W. DICOSTANZO ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY ARNOLD P. KEITH, JR., ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
Unpublished Opinion
NICHOLAS W. DICOSTANZO ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ARNOLD P. KEITH, JR., ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
DECISION AND ORDER
ROBERT A. NEARY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
The defendant, Tairus White-Edney, has been charged with the crimes of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Firearm (two counts). The defendant has made an omnibus motion which consists of a Notice of Motion and an Affirmation in support thereof. In response, the People have filed an Affirmation in Opposition together with a Memorandum of Law. Having read all of the submitted papers and reviewed the court file, this Court makes the following determination.
1., 2., and 3. MOTION TO INSPECT THE GRAND JURY MINUTES, MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT and MOTION TO REDUCE THE CHARGES
The defendant's motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes is granted. Upon an in camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes by Court, the motion to dismiss the indictment or reduce a charged offense in the indictment is denied.
The Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceeding before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was properly instructed (see People v. Calbud, 49 N.Y.2d 389, 426 N.Y.S.2d 389, 402 N.E.2d 1140 and People v. Valles, 62 N.Y.2d 36, 476 N.Y.S.2d 50, 464 N.E.2d 418) and the evidence presented, if accepted as true would be legally sufficient to establish every element of the offenses charged. [See CPL §210.30(2)]. In addition, the minutes reveal that a quorum of the grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the district attorney instructed the Grand Jury on the law, and that it was instructed that only those grand jurors who had heard all the evidence could participate in voting on the matter.
The Court does not find that the release of the Grand Jury minutes or certain portions thereof to the parties was necessary to assist the Court in making this determination.
4. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS OR IN THE ALTERNAIVE FOR A HUNTLEY/DUNA WA Y HEARING
This branch of the defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a Huntley hearing shall be held prior to trial to determine whether any statements allegedly made by the defendant, which have been noticed by the People pursuant to CPL §710.30 (1)(a), were involuntarily made by the defendant within the meaning of CPL §60.45 (see CPL §710.20(3), CPL §710.60[3][b]; People v. Weaver, 49 N.Y.2d 1012, 429 N.Y.S.2d 399, 406 N.E.2d 1335), obtained in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and/or obtained in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824).
5. and 6. MOTION TO PRECLUDE STATEMENTS AND IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY
The defendant's motion is denied as speculative and premature
7. MOTION TO SUPRESS ANY PROPERTY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A MAPP/DUNA WAY HEARING :
This branch of the defendant's motion is granted solely to the extent of conducting a Mapp hearing prior to trial to determine the propriety of any search resulting in the seizure of property. [See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081].
8. MOTION TO DISMISS ON GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30(1)
This branch of the defendant's motion is granted solely to the extent that the Court will conduct a hearing to determine whether the defendant's right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30(1) has been violated. A hearing is necessary as the papers submitted do not conclusively establish a sufficient excludable time period to allow the Court to decide the matter. [See People v. Cumberbatch, 171 A.D.2d 671 (2nd Dept.); People v. Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351], 9. MOTION FOR A SANDOVAL/VENTIMIGLIA HEARING
This branch of the defendant's motion is granted to the limited extent of conducting a Sandoval hearing immediately prior to trial at which time: (1) the People must notify the defendant of all specific instances of the defendant's prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct of which the People have knowledge and which the People intend to use at trial for the purposes of impeaching the credibility of the defendant (see CPL §245.20[3]) the defendant must then sustain his burden of informing the Court of the prior misconduct which might unfairly affect him as a witness in his own behalf. [See People v. Malphurs, 111 A.D.2d 266, 489 N.Y.S.2d 102, Iv. denied 66 N.Y.2d 616, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1039, 483 N.E.2d 243], 10. MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE
The defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent provided for in Criminal Procedure Law Article 245. If any items set forth in CPL Article 245 have not been provided to the defendant pursuant to the Consent Discovery Order in the instant matter, said items are to be provided forthwith. The People are directed to comply with any demand for a Bill of Particulars
To any further extent, the application is denied as seeking material or information beyond the scope of discovery. [See People v. Colavito, 87 N.Y.2d 423, 639 N.Y.S.2d 996, 663 N.E.2d 308; Matter of Brown v. Grosso, 285 A.D.2d 642, 729 N.Y.S.2d 492, Iv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 605, 737 N.Y.S.2d 52, 762 N.E.2d 930; Matter of Brown v. Appelman, 241 A.D.2d 279, 672 N.Y.S.2d 373; Matter of Catterson v. Jones, 229; A.D.2d 435, 644 N.Y.S.2d 573; Matter of Catterson v. Rohl, 202 A.D.2d 420, 608 N.Y.S.2d 696, Iv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 755, 613 N.Y.S.2d 127, 241 N.E.2d 279], 11. MOTION TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND OR SUPPLEMENT
Upon a proper showing, the Court will entertain appropriate additional motions 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 in this motion. [See CPL §255.20(3)].
This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court.