The opinion
People v Rhames
2021 NY Slip Op 34142(U)
August 23, 2021
Supreme Court, Westchester County
Docket Number: Ind. 21-0304
Judge: Susan M. Capeci
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
FILED
AND
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
ENTERED
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ON fj:. 2.P, 20 2/
----------------------------------------------------------------X WESTCHESTER
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY CLERK
DECISION AND ORDER
Ind. 21-0304
-against- (Motion to Consolidate)
SHAUN RHAMES,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------X
In this proceeding where the defendant has been charged by indictment #21-
0304 with two counts of assault in the second degree (P.L. 120.05 (2) and 120.05 (12)),
unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (P.L. 135.10), criminal possession of a
weapon in the fourth degree (P.L. 265.01 (2)), and menacing in the second degree (P.L.
120.14 (1)), and by indictment#19-1266 with attempted murder in the second degree
(P.L. 110/125.25 (1 )), assault in the first degree (P.L. 120.10 (1 )), criminal possession of
a weapon in the fourth degree (P.L. 265.01 (2)), and criminal contempt in the first
degree (P.L. 215.51 (b)(v)), the People move to consolidate the above indictments for
trial. The defendant has objected to the consolidation of these cases for trial 1 .
The defendant was charged with the above noted offenses under Indictment #19-
1266 with respect to an incident that occurred on July 11, 2019. The charges under
Indictment #21-0304 were based upon an incident that occurred on February 21, 2021.
Each case involved a different victim.
The People seek to consolidate the above indictments for trial, contending that
- 1'
I Defendant's counsel under Indictment #19-1266 has filed an affirmation in opposition. No response to the motion
was filed by his counsel under Indictment #21-0304. l F ILED fr
AUG 2 3 2021
TIM01HY C. IDONI
COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
[* 1]
although the cases involve different victims, they will make a pre-trial Molineux motion
to allow evidence of either of the assaults to be admitted at the trial of the other, under
the various theories of intent, absence of mistake, modus operandi, or common scheme
or plan. They argue that there are similarities between the two assault cases, which
include the defendant's calls to police to warn them of her need to attack each of_ these
men due to alleged crimes they had been committing, and that she attacked each of
them as they sat in her kitchen having a drink. The defendant had a prior intimate
relationship with each of the victims, and the victims were known to each other.
Alternatively, the People argue that each indictment is joinable since each
involves offenses that are statutorily similar to each other, as they both involve assaults.
The defendant opposes consolidation of the indictments for trial, contending that
they involve different complainants on different dates, and that it would be prejudicial to
her to try the cases together.
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" (CPL 200.20(2)(b); see also
CPL 100.45(1) [applying CPL 200.20 to misdemeanor informations]).
Pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2)(c), two offenses are also "joinable" when, "[e]ven
though based upon different criminal transactions, and even though not joinable
pursuant to paragraph (b), such offenses are defined by the same or similar statutory
2
[* 2]
provisions and consequently are the same or similar in law" (CPL 200.20(2)(c)).
"It is clear that the decision to consolidate separate indictments under CPL
200.20 ... is committed to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge in light of the
circumstances of the individual case, and the decision is reviewable on appeal. .. only to
the extent that there has been an abuse of that discretion as a matter of law. Trial courts
should generally weigh the public interest in avoiding duplicative, lengthy and expensive
trials against the defendant's interest in being protected from unfair disadvantage"
(People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1 (1982)).
Although the charges could be joinable as the same or similar in law, as both
incidents involve assaults, the Court declines to order the indictments consolidated for
trial (CPL 200.20 (4), (5)). Given that each incident involved use of a knife against a
person known to the defendant, there is a strong possibility of a conviction "by reason of
the cumulative effect of the evidence rather than by its separate and distinct r~levance
to each incident" (People v Stanley, 81 AD2d 842 (2d Dept 1981) [severance granted
where each separate incident involved assaultive and threatening behavior with a
knife]). The risk of prejudice to the defendant under these circumstances warrants a
separate trial on each indictment.
For the above stated reasons, the People's motion to consolidate the above
Indictments for trial is denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: August 23, 2021
White Plains, New York HON.
A.J.S.C.
3
[* 3]
To: Hon. Miriam E. Rocah
Westchester County District Attorney
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, New York 10601
Joseph Goubeaud, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant (#19-1266)
22 West First Street, Suite 502
Mount Vernon, New York 10550
Angelo G. MacDonald., Esq.
Attorney for Defendant (#21-0304)
200 West 60 th Street, Suite 3C
New York, New York 10023
4
[* 4]