Opinion
Index No. FYC-00000-00
09-17-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. V.M., Adolescent Offender.
Hon. Joyce Smith, Acting Nassau County District Attorney, Rivka Shuter, Esq., Taryn Shechter, Esq., Attorney for the Adolescent Offender
Hon. Joyce Smith, Acting Nassau County District Attorney, Rivka Shuter, Esq., Taryn Shechter, Esq., Attorney for the Adolescent Offender
The following papers were read on this Motion:
The People's Affirmation and Memorandum of Law in Support. 1
Defense Counsel Affirmation in Opposition and Supporting Papers 2
The defendant in this matter, V.M. (D.O.B. XX/XX/XXXX) is charged as an Adolescent Offender ("AO") in the Youth Part of the County Court in Nassau County. The People have moved for an Order pursuant to CPL § 722.23(1) directing that this matter remain in the Youth Part and not be removed to the Family Court in Nassau County due to the existence of "extraordinary circumstances". ( CPL § 722.23[1] ). The AO has filed opposition to the People's motion.
The People's Motion Opposing Removal is determined as follows:
The AO is charged by way of separate felony complaints with one count of Attempted Assault in the First Degree [Penal Law §§ 110.00/120.10(1)]; one count of Assault in the Second Degree [ Penal Law § 120.05 ]; and one count of Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree [ Penal Law § 145.05(2) ]. He is also charged, by way of separate district court informations, with one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree [ Penal Law § 260.10(1) ]; and with four counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child [ Penal Law § 260.10(1) ]. The charges filed against the AO arise from an incident alleged to have occurred on July 18, 2021, at approximately 1:30 AM in H., Nassau County, New York. The AO was arraigned in the Youth Part on July 19, 2021 and on July 22, 2021, the Court conducted the statutorily-required sixth-day appearance. On August 2, 2021, the Court issued its Decision and Order on the sixth-day appearance, finding that the People had failed to satisfy their burden at that appearance and ordering that the AO's case would be removed to the Family Court absent the People filing a motion opposing removal pursuant to CPL § 722.23[1]. The People thereafter filed the motion that is the subject of this Decision and Order.
The People's Motion Opposing Removal consists of the Supporting Affirmation of ADA Rivka Shuter, Esq. ["ADA Shuter Aff. In Support"], with a Memorandum of Law ["People's Memo of Law"] and exhibits attached thereto. The People argue that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant retaining this case in the Youth Part, in that the AO is alleged to have acted in an "exceptionally cruel and heinous manner". (People's Memo of Law , p. 8). They further argue that no mitigating circumstances exist which might outweigh the determination that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant retaining the case in the Youth Part.
The AO has opposed the People's Motion Opposing Removal. The AO's opposition consists of the supporting affirmation of his counsel, Taryn Shechter, Esq., with supporting exhibits appended thereto. The AO's counsel contends that the People have failed to prove extraordinary circumstances and the AO's case must be removed to the Family Court. She further contends that the People have failed to prove that any "highly unusual and heinous facts" exist which warrant a finding of extraordinary circumstances, and that the People have offered no proof that there is no possible benefit to the AO having his case heard in the Family Court or that the AO is not amenable to Family Court services. (Affirmation in Opposition by Taryn Shechter, Esq. , dated August 30, 2021 ["Shechter Aff. In Opp."], ¶¶ 8 to 17).
FINDINGS OF FACT
It is alleged in the accusatory instrument that on July 18, 2021 at approximately 1:30 AM at the AO's home in H., Nassau County, New York, the AO was involved in an argument with the 15-year-old victim, who is his girlfriend and the mother of his child. (Ex. 1 to ADA Shuter Aff. In Support ). It is further alleged that the 15-year-old victim, the victim and the AO's ten-month-old daughter, and the AO's younger siblings (11-year-old sister and 14-year-old brother) were all present in the AO's home for the incident. (Ex. 1 to ADA Shuter Aff. In Support ). The AO allegedly broke the victim's phone by forcefully throwing it against his bedroom wall and causing the phone's screen to shatter. (Ex. 1 to ADA Shuter Aff. In Support ).The AO then allegedly used a large kitchen knife to repeatedly slash the victim on her left leg, left arm and beneath her right breast, causing her to sustain multiple lacerations and puncture wounds. (Ex. 1 to ADA Shuter Aff. In Support ). It is further alleged that the victim's injuries caused her substantial pain and required numerous stiches to control the bleeding.
It is alleged in the People's supporting affirmation that the AO stabbed the victim as she huddled in the corner of the room to protect herself. (ADA Shuter Aff. In Support , ¶ 10). It is further alleged that the AO caused multiple lacerations to the victim: five to her left leg, one laceration under her right breast, one laceration to her left arm, and one puncture wound to her left arm. (ADA Shuter Aff. In Support , ¶ 11; see also Ex. 3 thereto). It is further alleged that the AO did not stop stabbing the victim until his younger siblings successfully wrestled the knife from his hands to prevent him from continuing to assault the victim. (ADA Shuter Aff. In Support , ¶ 14; see also Ex. 3 thereto). The People's Motion Opposing Removal includes a supporting affidavit from the victim, in which she affirms that the AO's younger siblings assisted her by pulling the AO off of her and helping her to safely leave the scene of the incident. (Ex. 3 to ADA Shuter Aff. In Support ).
The AO's counsel contends that there are several mitigating factors present in this case. First, the AO was diagnosed with ADHD at six years old and took medication for six months, until the AO's mother stopped the medication due to the AO experiencing unwanted side effects. (Shechter Aff. In Opp. , ¶ 11). Counsel further contends that the AO continues to experience ADHD symptoms. Counsel contends that another mitigating factor in this case is that both the victim and the AO were drinking alcohol on the date of the alleged incident. (Shechter Aff. In Opp. , ¶ 12). The AO's counsel contends that the AO's alleged conduct constitutes an "impulsive act following a dispute" with his intimate partner, which is another example of a mitigating factor. (Shechter Aff. In Opp. , ¶ 13). The AO's counsel further contends that another mitigating factor present in this case is the AO's home life, in that the AO was not raised by both parents. The AO's father was deported when the AO was an infant, his mother eventually married the father of her younger daughter and during that marriage, the AO had a steady figure in his life, but when that marriage dissolved and the mother's husband moved out, the AO started to rebel and act out. (Shechter Aff. In Opp. , ¶ 14). The AO's counsel further contends that, contrary to the People's interpretation of the AO's noticed statements to law enforcement, the AO has expressed remorse for the incident to his attorney and to his mother. (Shechter Aff. In Opp. , ¶ 15).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CPL § 722.23(1) requires the Court to deny the People's Motion Opposing Removal unless they establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" which warrant keeping this case in the Youth Part. ( CPL § 722.23[1][d] ). The term "extraordinary circumstances" is not defined under CPL § 722.23. Accordingly, this Court's "primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature". ( People v. Thomas , 33 NY3d 1, *5 [2019] ; People v. Roberts , 31 NY3d 406, 418 [2018] ). After referring to the common dictionary definition of the term "extraordinary", and having reviewed the legislative history of the RTA legislation as a further statutory interpretation aid , the Court interprets "extraordinary circumstances" to mean that the People's Motion Opposing Removal must be denied unless they establish the existence of an "exceptional" set of facts which "go beyond" that which is "usual, regular or customary" and which warrant retaining the case in the Youth Part instead of removing it to the Family Court.
See People v. Andujar , 30 NY3d 160, 163 [2017] ; People v. Ocasio , 28 NY3d 178, 181 [2016], wherein the Court of Appeals held that the Court could refer to the "dictionary definition" of a statutory term for a "useful guidepost" in construing that term.
People v. Roberts , 31 NY3d at 423 ; see also People v. Andujar , 30 NY3d at 166 ["While ‘the words of the statute are the best evidence of the Legislature's intent,’ legislative history may also be relevant as an aid to construction of the meaning of words’ "]).
Merriam-Webster defines "extraordinary" as "going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary", and "exceptional to a very marked extent". (see Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, display [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary]). Black's Law Dictionary defines the term "extraordinary circumstances" as "[a] highly unusual set of facts that are not commonly associated with a particular thing or event". (10th ed. 2014).
Legislators debating the Raise the Age bill contemplated that the "extraordinary circumstances" standard would be satisfied where "highly unusual and heinous facts are proven and there is a strong proof that the young person is not amenable or would not benefit in any way from the heightened services in the family court". (Assembly, Record of Proceedings , April 8, 2017 ["Assembly Record"], p. 39). The legislators specifically declined to provide definitive examples of instances where a case would rise to the level of "extraordinary circumstances". (Assembly Record , p. 39). They advised that in assessing whether the People have proven "extraordinary circumstances", the Judge should consider all the circumstances of that youth, including both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. (Assembly Record , pp. 39 to 40). Examples of "aggravating" circumstances include proof of a series of serious crimes committed by the defendant over the course of many days; or that the AO acted "in an especially cruel and heinous manner"; or that the AO was a ringleader who threatened and coerced reluctant youths to participate in the crimes. (Assembly Record , p. 40). Examples of "mitigating circumstances" include economic difficulties; substandard housing; poverty; learning difficulties; educational challenges; lack of insight and susceptibility to peer pressure due to immaturity; absence of positive role models; and abuse of alcohol or controlled substances by the AO, by the AO's family, or by peers. (Assembly Record , p. 40).
In this case, the People argue that the AO acted in an "exceptionally cruel and heinous manner" when he repeatedly stabbed the 15-year-old victim with a kitchen knife while she huddled in a corner trying to protect herself. (People's Memo of Law , p. 8). They further contend that the alleged attack occurred in front of three minors: the AO's two younger siblings and the child that he shares with the victim, who was then a 10-month-old infant. (People's Memo of Law , p. 8). They also contend that the AO only stopped attacking the victim when he was forced to stop by his younger siblings, who wrestled the kitchen knife out of his hands. (People's Memo of Law , p. 8). They further contend that the AO sustained multiple lacerations, puncture wounds, and bleeding, and that she experienced substantial pain due to the AO's attack. (People's Memo of Law , p. 8). Finally, they contend that none of the AO's statements to law enforcement expressed any concern, apology or remorse for his actions. (Memo of Law , p. 8, Exhibits 2 and 7 to ADA Shuter Aff. In Support ).
The AO's counsel argues that the People have failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances, first, because the AO being charged with Attempted Assault in the First Degree is not a bar to removing his case to the Family Court. (Shechter Aff. In Opp. , ¶ 6). Second, they argue that the People have failed to establish that the AO caused the victim to sustain significant physical injury. (Shechter Aff. In Opp. , ¶ 7). Third, they argue that the People have failed to establish that the AO is not amenable to receiving family court services, or that there is no possible benefit to his case being removed to the Family Court. Fourth, they argue that multiple mitigating factors exist, including that the AO's father was deported when he was an infant and that his mother's subsequent marriage recently dissolved; that the AO was diagnosed with ADHD when he was a child but has not received medication for such condition for most of his life; that both the victim and the AO were consuming alcohol on the date of the incident; and that the AO has expressed remorse for the subject incident.
Having reviewed the points raised by both parties and the purpose of the RTA legislation and having weighed the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances of this individual AO, the Court finds that the People have established the existence of extraordinary circumstances which warrant keeping this case in the Youth Part. The Court has considered the mitigating circumstances offered by the AO's counsel. However, while the AO's father was deported when he was an infant and he does not have a relationship with his father, the Court notes that the AO's mother remarried, and the AO had a steady father figure in his life for much of his adolescence. Additionally, while the AO and the victim were both allegedly consuming alcohol at the time of the incident, the Court finds it inappropriate to minimize his actions as a mere "impulsive act following an argument with an intimate partner". (See Shechter Aff. In Opp. , ¶ 14). The AO in this case is alleged to not only have fought with his paramour, but is alleged to have repeatedly slashed/stabbed her with a knife while she was defenseless. Fortunately, the AO's young siblings allegedly intervened and stopped the AO from inflicting further injury on her, but the Court finds that allegations that the AO engaged in such conduct in the first place to be sufficiently unusual and serious to warrant keeping this case in the Youth Part.
For the foregoing reasons, the People's Motion Opposing Removal is granted, and the AO's case will remain in the Youth Part through disposition.
This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court.