Opinion
2010RI008067
08-26-2011
The People of the State of New York, v. Elaine Matthews, Defendant.
The defendant was represented by Neil Ruskin, Esq, 16 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201.
The People were represented by Assistant District Attorney Tuesday Muller Mondi, Office of the Richmond County District Attorney, 130 Stuyvesant Place, Staten Island, New York, 10301.
Mario F. Mattei, J.
The pursuit of justice is rarely a clear path and more often than not obstacles within the criminal justice system, for both the People and the defendant, make difficult a resolution which is truly just and not merely the product of a truce in the adversarial system. Absent the power of the court to intervene, in the interests of justice, in a select few cases, the criminal justice system would be devoid of a method to insure that equity, one of the long forgotten bases of our system, still has a place at the table.
On August 27, 2010, members of the Narcotics Bureau of Staten Island executed a search warrant inside Apartment 508 at 55 Bowen Street. The allegations in the warrant indicated that the "targets" of the warrant were two males who were selling marihuana from the apartment. As a result of the warrant the police recovered a small quantity of marihuana and one ziplock bag containing cocaine. The defendant, a School Crossing Guard who resides in the apartment with her teen-age daughter, and two other individuals (including the daughter) were arrested inside the apartment when the warrant was executed. The defendant was not one of the targets. She was not charged with possessing any of the marihuana seized, but rather was the only individual charged with possessing the single ziplock bag of cocaine which, according to the complaint, was discovered in a closet under a pile of clothes which included a school crossing guard uniform. The People declined to prosecute the daughter.
On June 20, 2011, the defendant filed a "Clayton" motion requesting that the Court dismiss the information pursuant to CPL 170.40 in the interests of justice. The People have opposed the motion.
According to the motion, the defendant, who is 54 years old and the mother of three children, ranging in age from 18 to 33 years old, was raised by her grandmother due to the premature death of her own mother. The defendant has no prior criminal record and worked for the NYPD as a School Crossing Guard for the last 23 years until her arrest. Prior to obtaining her position as a School Crossing Guard the defendant worked for almost 7 years as a security guard. On the day of her arrest the defendant voluntarily submitted to two drug tests administered by the police department, giving samples of hair and urine. The tests results were negative for the presence of drugs. Nonetheless, the defendant was suspended within days. Since her arrest the defendant has worked at three other odd jobs to supplement her income. In May of this year the defendant was relieved of her position of 23 years as a result of the arrest in this case. The defendant's attorney indicates however that a favorable resolution in this case will allow the defendant to appeal her termination and would provide a glimmer of hope that she can get her job back.
The Court may dismiss an accusatory instrument in the interest of justice when "such dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such accusatory instrument or count would constitute or result in injustice" (CPL § 170.40[1]). The Court's discretion should be "exercised sparingly" and only in the rare case where there is a "compelling factor" which clearly demonstrates that continued prosecution would be an injustice (People v MR, 43 AD3d 1188 [2d Dept 2007]; People v Sherman, 35 AD3d 768 [2d Dept 2006]; People v Johnson-Noble, 2008 NY Slip Op 52436 U, 21 Misc 3d 1140A [Crim Ct, Queens County 2008]).
The factors enumerated in CPL 170.40 are well known and since it is not necessary for the Court to engage in a point by point catechistic discussion of all ten factors listed in the statute (People v. Rickert, 58 NY2d 122 [1983]), the Court has considered each of those factors, individually and collectively, and finds that they present a compelling factor, consideration and circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the Defendant would constitute or result in injustice. After considering all of these factors the Court feels that the interests of justice warrant a dismissal of this case.
While the charge in this case is a class "A" misdemeanor, a serious crime, the nature and circumstances of the case make it less serious than other crimes of the same degree since there was no victim and no harm done to anyone. The defendant's clean drug test is compelling since there is no evidence that the defendant had actual physical possession or knowledge of the single ziplock bag. While the evidence of guilt is not meant to be an assessment of the relative strength or weakness of the People's case (People v. McConnell, 2006 NY Slip Op 26081; 11 Misc 3d 57 [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2006]; People v. Prunty, 101 Misc 2d 163 [Crim Ct, Queens County, 1979]; People v. Litman, 99 AD2d 573 [3rd Dept, 1984]), it would be a miscarriage of the Court's duty to not note that the charge against the defendant is predicated upon her residency in an apartment which she shares with her teen age daughter and the fact that her uniform was part of a pile of clothing where the cocaine was found. There is no indication that the cocaine was in any of the pockets of her uniform. There is no realistic possibility that the most severe sentence - one year in jail - would be necessary, warranted or justified. Indeed, the District Attorney has made an reasonable offer of a violation and community service to resolve the case. This offer, without any condition that the defendant voluntarily give up her job as a School Crossing Guard working with the children of Staten Island, implies that the dismissal of this case would not impact on the safety of the community. Conversely, a dismissal of this case in the interests of justice would bolster the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system since it would show that the law is flexible enough to allow the fair and equitable treatment of each and therefore all individuals and capable of allowing a court to temper justice with mercy under circumstances in which a person finds themselves in a situation which, if true, is an aberration in an otherwise law abiding life.
And of course, the most compelling circumstance in this case, where the collateral consequences are more severe than any punishment to be meted out by a criminal conviction, are the collateral consequences already suffered by this apparently hard working single mother now forced to work a series of menial jobs to provide for her family despite the presumption of innocence and not having been convicted of any crime. The chance, however slim, that the defendant may be restored to a position at which she served admirably for over two decades is a consideration so compelling that it would be an injustice to ignore.
It is the Court's opinion that the dismissal of this case in the interests of justice is a truly just resolution because it is ethically, morally and legally correct and is consistent with the sensitive balance of the interests of the individual and of the People (People v. Belkota, 50 AD2d 118, 120 4th Dept, 1975).
Accordingly,
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted; and it is hereby
ORDERED that the case is dismissed. This opinion shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: August 26, 2011
Staten Island, New York
__________________________
Hon. Mario F. Mattei
Judge of the Criminal Court