Opinion
Docket No. CR-00470-19
10-06-2021
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Raymond STRAWN III, Defendant.
For the People: Paul Czajka, Esq., Columbia County District Attorney, by Shawn Lally, Esq., Assistant District Attorney For the Defendant: Michael Howard, Esq., Assistant Columbia County Public Defender
For the People: Paul Czajka, Esq., Columbia County District Attorney, by Shawn Lally, Esq., Assistant District Attorney
For the Defendant: Michael Howard, Esq., Assistant Columbia County Public Defender
Brian J. Herman, J.
Background of Case
This criminal matter was commenced by the filing with this court two accusatory instruments which allege that on February 3, 2019, the defendant violated Penal Law § 120.00(1), Assault in the Third Degree (a Class A Misdemeanor) and violated Penal Law § 260.10(1), Endangering the Welfare of a Child (also a Class A Misdemeanor).
On May 8, 2019, the defendant was arraigned and entered not guilty pleas to the two charges.
At the next court appearance on May 9, 2019, the court was advised that this matter was likely going to be transferred to the Integrated Domestic Violence Part of the Columbia County Court. Thereafter the matter was in fact removed to the Integrated Domestic Violence Part of the Columbia County Court.
Approximately three months later, the court learned that the matter was not resolved in County Court, and the case was returned to Hudson City Court to proceed to disposition. The next appearance was on August 29, 2019, at which time a motion schedule was set.
On September 19, 2019, defense counsel filed an omnibus motion which the People opposed. The court decided the motion by written decision dated November 13, 2019. As a result of the court's decision, a Huntley Hearing was scheduled for December 5, 2019.
Then on January 1, 2020, the procedures and requirements for disclosure and discovery in criminal matters were drastically revised when the New York State Legislature repealed former CPL Article 240 and replaced it with CPL Article 245. Under the new statute, most discovery disclosures must be made without a request and within 15 days of arraignment . The statute also requires that disclosing parties file a Certificate of Compliance, certifying that disclosure is complete. The new law also prohibits the People from announcing readiness for trial until their disclosure is complete and a Certificate of Compliance is served and filed with the court.
See CPL § 245.10.
Meanwhile, the date for the jury trial in this matter was set by the court for January 11, 2020. On the joint request of the People and the defendant, the jury trial was rescheduled for February 24, 2020. Thereafter there was a further request on consent to adjourn the jury trial. The court reschedule the trial for May 11, 2020.
Shortly thereafter, the COVID-19 crisis impacted the New York State judicial system. As all were pending criminal matters in New York State, this matter was held in hiatus during the COVID-19 pandemic suspension of trials in New York. In the Spring of 2021, New York State courts were able to resume scheduling jury trials. A trial date was rescheduled for April 1, 2021.
On the joint request of the People and the defendant, the trial was rescheduled for June 14, 2021. Again, on the joint request of the People and the defendant, the trial was postponed. At a court appearance on June 24, 2021, the People advised that the trial would have to be further delayed, since the People will be providing the defense names of witnesses which had not been previously provided. The defendant did not lodge any object to the adjournment request.
The next court appearance was July 8, 2021. At this appearance the People and the Defendant again requested that the trial be further adjourned so the People had additional time to provide names and contact information of witnesses to the defendant, and to allow the defendant time to investigate this new information before a new trial date is set. On August 5, 2021, the defendant filed this instant motion seeking dismissal of the charges.
Arguments
The defendant is seeking dismissal of the pending charges on, "statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds and for such other and further relief as to the court seems just and proper."
Specifically, the defendant brings to the attention of the court that the People, "... failed to disclose the name and contact information of the school nurse who received the initial report from the alleged victim and alleged victim's grandmother until July 14, 2021." Defense further asserts that since the names and contact information of these two witnesses were not disclosed prior to the filing of the People's Certificate of Compliance, the Certificate of Compliance filed by the People is "illusory." The defendant concludes that since the People were in fact not ready for trial within the speedy trial time period, the charges must be dismissed.
Discussion
Clearly, it is unfortunate the progress of this case has been delayed numerous times for various reasons. Shortly after arraignment, this case was delayed by the removal of the case for approximately four months to the Integrated Domestic Violence Part of the Columbia County Court. Upon this case's return to Hudson City Court, motions were made and decided. Then, the court proceedings were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These intervening factors delayed and interrupted the progress of this case. However, these delays are not chargeable to the People.
The People concede that for an unspecified reason, disclosure of the names and contact information of the two missing witnesses was not made to the Defendant until July 14, 2021. The People affirm that in May or June 2021, when a different assistant district attorney was assigned this case, he became aware that the People failed to provide a Notice and Disclosure. The new assistant district attorney endeavored to prepare and serve such. The People further affirm that while preparing the Notice and Disclosure, the assistant district attorney responsible for this case became aware that certain witnesses were not disclosed to the Defendant. It appears that shortly after becoming aware of the failure to disclose, the People provided the information to the Defendant.
Decision
The People's Failure to Complete Disclosure within 15-Days as Required by CPL Article 245. It is uncontested that the names and contact information of two potential witnesses were not provided to the defense until well after the requisite 15-day period and therefore the People are not in compliance with Article 245. CPL § 245.80 provides for remedies and sanctions in the event of noncompliance with Article 245. CPL § 245.80 (1) provides direction to the court as to when a remedy or sanction is needed. In this case, the names and contact information of two witnesses was disclosed by the People to the Defendant belatedly. In such circumstances, CPL § 245.80 (1) mandates that the court, "shall impose an appropriate remedy or sanction if the party entitled to disclosure shows that it was prejudiced. Regardless of a showing of prejudice the party entitled to disclosure shall be given reasonable time to prepare and respond to the new material." Here, the defendant has failed to allege any prejudice resulting from the belated disclosure of the two witnesses. The court has granted the defendant time to "prepare and respond to the new material." While the People fail to explain the reason for the belated disclosure, the court notes that there have been two different assistant district attorneys were responsible for this case, one prior to the COVID-19 hiatus, and a different assistant district attorney handling the matter after the COVID-19 hiatus. The court also notes that CPL Article 245 was enacted shortly before the COVID-19 hiatus. While this does not excuse or justify the People being so disorganized to the extent that one assistant district attorney did not know what his predecessor district attorney did or not do in this case, there is no allegation by the defendant that the belated disclosure was intentional.
CPL § 245.80 (2) sets forth the available remedies or sanctions for noncompliance with CPL Article 245:
For failure to comply with any discovery order imposed or issued pursuant to this article, the court may make a further order for discovery, grant a continuance, order that a hearing be reopened, order that a witness be called or recalled, instruct the jury that it may draw an adverse inference regarding the non-compliance, preclude or strike a witness's testimony or a portion of a witness's testimony, admit or exclude evidence, order a mistrial, order the dismissal of all or some of the charges, or make such other order as it deems just under the circumstances; except that any sanction against the defendant shall comport with the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense, and precluding a defense witness from testifying shall be permissible only upon a finding that the defendant's failure to comply with the discovery obligation or order was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this court finds that no sanctions or remedies are necessary or appropriate in this instance other than requiring the People to file a new and accurate Certificate of Compliance within seven days of the date of this decision.
The Defendant's Right to a Speedy Trial on Statutory Grounds. CPL § 30.30(b) provides that a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds must be granted if the People are not ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of a criminal action such as this matter: a case wherein the defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of which is a felony.
This ninety-day period can be tolled for various reasons, such as motion practice, adjournments on consent, or other periods occasioned by exceptional circumstances (the court considers the shutdown of the courts resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic such exceptional circumstances). Additionally, it is noted that the ninety-day period was tolled by COVID-19 executive orders of the Governor.
The court is unaware of the defendant making objections to any adjournment requests by the People.
Therefore, the court determines that the defendant's rights under CPL § 30.30 has not been violated.
The Defendant's Right to a Speedy Trial on Constitutional Grounds. There is no express provision for a speedy trial under the New York State Constitution; however, Articles I and VI, does provide that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process or law."
Regarding the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitutional, a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial has universally been thought to be essential to our system of criminal justice. The United States Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals have held that a speedy trial serves to (1) prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial; (2) minimize the anxiety and concern that accompanies a public accusation; and (3) limit the possibility that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself or herself.
United States v Ewell , 383 U.S. 116, 86 S. Ct. 773, 15 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1966) ; People v Cousart , 58 NY2d 62, 458 N.Y.S.2d 507, 444 N.E.2d 971 (1982) ; People v Prosser , 309 NY 353, 130 N.E.2d 891 (1955) ; In re Jermaine J. , 6 AD3d 87, 775 N.Y.S.2d 287 (1st Dept 2004).
The defendant cites the Third Department case of People v Cooper which in turn cites People v Taranovich. Taranovich sets forth five factors to be considered when determining whether a defendant's due process right to prompt prosecution has been violated:
258 AD2d 815 (3d Dept 1999).
37 NY2d 442 (1975).
1. the extent of the delay;
2. the reason for the delay;
3. the nature of the underlying charge;
4. whether there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and
5. whether there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay.
It should be noted that in Taranovich, the New York State Court of Appeals stated that:
... there is no specific temporal duration after which a defendant automatically becomes entitled to release for denial of a speedy trial.
Citing, People v White , 32 NY2d 393 ; People v Minicone , 28 NY2d 279 ; People v Ganci , 27 NY2d 418, cert den 402 U.S. 924 ; People v Prosser , 309 NY 353, 360 ).
Instead, the assertion by the accused of his right to a speedy trial requires the court to examine the claim in light of the particular factors attending the specific case under scrutiny ... there are no clear cut answers in such an inquiry, and the trial court must engage in a sensitive weighing process of the diversified factors present in the particular case. Moreover, the various factors must be evaluated on an ad hoc basis since no rigid precepts may be formulated which apply to each and every instance in which it is averred that there has been a deprivation of the speedy trial right . Additionally, we hasten to add that no one factor or combination of the factors set forth below is necessarily decisive or determinative of the speedy trial claim, but rather the particular case must be considered in light of all the factors as they apply to it (see Sortino v. Fisher , for parallel principles applicable in civil cases).
Citing, People v Prosser , supra, at p 360.
Citing, Barker v Wingo , Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 522 ).
Applying the five criteria of Taranovich to the case at bar, this court finds that the defendant's rights under both the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution have not been violated:
1. While it is true that the delay has been extensive, it appears to have been unavoidable and not chargeable to the People.
2. The delays were occasioned by the temporary deviation of the case to the Integrated Domestic Violence Part of the Columbia County Court, the temporary cessation of criminal trials in New York State resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown; and ordinary motion practice.
3. The court finds that the underlying charges allege very serious criminal allegations whose nature demands adjudication.
4. The defendant has not been incarcerated during the pendency of this criminal matter.
5. The defendant has not alleged any impairment resulting from the delay.
Based upon the foregoing, it is here ordered that the People file an accurate Certificate of Compliance within seven days of the date of this decision, that the motion is denied in all other respects, and that the parties appear in court on October 7, 2021, for scheduling the jury trial.
The foregoing constitutes the opinion, order and decision of this Court.