People v. Rhames

People v Rhames

2021 NY Slip Op 34141(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.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

----------------------------------------------------------------X

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DECISION AND ORDER

Ind. 21-

-against-

FILED

AND

ENTERED

SHAUN RHAMES,

Defendant. ON <;':- ZB

20.kl

WESTCHESTER

----------------------------------------------------------------X

~OUNTY CLERK

The defendant, charged by indictment 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)), makes this omnibus motion seeking:

1) inspection of the grand jury minutes by the Court and the defendant, and thereafter,

for the dismissal of the indictment and/or reduction of the charges contained therein; 2)

suppression of physical evidence, or a Mapp/Dunaway hearing; 3) suppression of the

statements alleged to have been made by her, with the exception of her Grand Jury

testimony, or in the alternative, for a Huntley hearing; 4) a

SandovalNentimiglia/Molineux hearing; 5) disclosure of Brady material; and 6) a

reservation of rights to make further pre-trial motions as necessary.

The People consent to an in camera review by the Court of the Grand Jury

minutes for legal sufficiency and the release of the grand jury testimony to the

defendant, consent to a SandovalNentimiglia/Molineux hearing, to a Huntley hearing

limited to defendant's 5th amendment claims, and to a Mfilm hearing, but otherwise

oppose the motion. The Court now finds as follows.

FILED ~

AUG 2 3 2021

TIMOTHY C. IDONI

COUNTY CLERK

COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

[* 1]

1. MOTION TO INSPECT THE GRAND JURY MINUTES

AND TO DISMISS AND/OR REDUCE THE INDICTMENT

Defendant moves pursuant to CPL §§210.20(1 )(b) and [c] to dismiss the

indictment, or counts thereof, on the grounds that the evidence before the Grand Jury

was legally insufficient and that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the

meaning of CPL §210.35. The Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceedings

before the Grand Jury.

Pursuant to CPL §190.65 (1 ), an indictment must be supported by legally

sufficient evidence which establishes that the defendant committed the offenses

charged. Legally sufficient evidence is competent evidence which, if accepted as true,

would establish each and every element of the offense charged and the defendant's

commission thereof (CPL §70.10[1 ]); People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103 [1986]). "In the

context of a grand jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the

crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523

(1998); People v Ackies, 79 AD3d 1050 (2 nd Dept 2010)). In rendering a determination,

"[t]he reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the

inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of each element of the

charged crimes and whether the grand jury could rationally have drawn the inference of

guilt" (Bello, supra, quoting People v Boampong, 57 AD3d 794 (2 nd Dept 2008-- internal

quotations omitted).

A review of the minutes reveals that the evidence presented, if accepted as true,

would be legally sufficient to establish every element of the offenses charged (see CPL

2

[* 2]

§210.30[2]). Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss or reduce for lack of sufficient

evidence is denied.

With respect to Defendant's claim that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective

within the meaning of CPL §210.35, a review of the minutes supports a finding 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, that the grand jurors who

voted to indict heard all the "essential and critical evidence" (see People v Collier, 72

NY2d 298 [1988]; People v Julius, 300 AD2d 167 [1 st Dept 2002], Iv den 99 NY2d 655

[2003]), and that the Grand -Jury was properly instructed (see People v Calbud, 49 NY2d

389 [1980] and People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36 [1984]). With respect to the defendant's

contention that a justification charge should have been given to _the Grand Jury, such

charge was in fact given, and was done so properly in accordance with applicable law.

In making this determination, the Court does not find that release of such portions

of the Grand Jury minutes as have not already been disclosed pursuant to CPL Article

245 to the parties was necessary to assist the Court.

2. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

The defendant moves to suppress all physical evidence seized from her person,

as well as evidence seized from any area in which she had an expectation of privacy,

including her home, as having been improperly seized following her unlawful arrest.

The defendant's motion for a Dunaway hearing as to probable cause for her

arrest is denied, as she has not made any allegations of fact, sworn or otherwise, to

support her claim that she was unlawfully arrested. Moreover, the information provided

3

[* 3]

to her as discovery indicates ample probable cause for her arrest. The defendant made

a 911 call to police, reporting that the victim was injured, and suggesting she caused the

injuries. Upon their arrival at the scene, the police officers found the victim outside the

home, bleeding, with visible injuries, and observed the defendant standing outside the

doorway holding two bloody knives. The defendant then made further statements about

having caused the victim's injuries. Thus, as probable cause existed for her arrest, any

evidence recovered from the defendant's person was seized incident to her lawful arrest

(People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49 (1982)).

However, since there is a factual issue as to the circumstances under which

evidence was subsequently obtained from the defendant's home, the defendant's

motion for a .Mfilm hearing is granted, on consent (People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415

(1993); People v Bryant, 8 NY3d 530 (2007)). The People assert that the defendant's

consent to enter her home was voluntarily given, and that the items of evidence that

were seized from the home were in "plain view." These issues shall be considered at a

hearing with respect to the seizure of this evidence.

3. MOTION TO SUPRESS STATEMENTS

The People have served the defendant with 6 separate CPL 710.30 notices with

respect to oral statements alleged to have been made by her to law enforcement

authorities 1 . The defendant argues that 5 of these noticed statements, with the

I The statements, each made to members of the Mt. Vernon Police Department, are as follows: I) Oral statement

recorded electronically, made Feb. 21, 2021, at 12:26 pm, at 600 South 8th Avenue, Mt Vernon, NY via 911 call; 2)

Oral statement recorded electronically, made Feb. 21, 2021, at 12:45 pm, at 600 South 8th Avenue, Mt Vernon, NY

via 911 call; 3) Oral statement recorded electronically, via body cam, made Feb. 21, 2021, at 12:50 pm, in the area

of600 South 8th Avenue, Mt Vernon, NY; 4) Oral statement recorded electronically, via body cam, made Feb. 21,

2021, at 4:30 pm, at Montefiore Mt. Vernon Hospital, Mt Vernon, NY; 5) Oral statement made Feb. 21, 2021, from

6pm to 10 pm, in the cell block at Mt. Vernon Police Department, to PO Mendez. A 6 th statement made before the

4

[* 4]

exception of the statement made to the Grand Jury, should be suppressed as

involuntarily made.

The defendant's motion for suppression of the above statements as set forth in

the CPL 710.30 notices is granted to the extent that the Court will conduct a Huntley

hearing prior to trial concerning the 5 noticed statements allegedly made by the

defendant for the purpose of determining whether Miranda warnings were necessary

and, if so, whether she was so advised and made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary

waiver thereof, or whether the statements were otherwise involuntarily made within the

meaning of CPL 60.45. As more fully discussed in Point 2, supra, the defendant's

motion for a hearing based upon her claim of unlawful arrest is denied.

To the extent the defendant moves to preclude any statement evidence not

noticed to her, this motion is denied as premature, as the People have not indicated

they are seeking to introduce any such evidence at trial.

4. MOTION FOR SANDOVALNENTIMIGLIA/MOLINEUX HEARING

Granted, solely to the extent that SandovalNentimiglia/Molineux hearings, as the

case may be, shall be held immediately prior to trial, as follows:

A. Pursuant to CPL §245.20, the People must notify the Defendant, not less

than fifteen days prior to the first scheduled date for trial, of all specific instances of

Defendant's uncharged misconduct and criminal acts of which the People have

knowledge and which the People intend to use at trial for purposes of impeaching the

credibility of the Defendant, or as substantive proof of any material issue in the case,

Grand Jury on May 19, 2021, is not subject to the suppression motion.

5

[* 5]

designating, as the case may be for each act or acts, the intended use (impeachment or

substantive proof) for which the act or acts will be offered; and

B. Defendant, at the ordered hearing, must then sustain her burden of

informing the Court of the prior misconduct which might unfairly affect her as a witness in

her own behalf (see People v Malphurs, 111 AD2d 266 [2 nd Dept. 1985]).

5. MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF BRADY MATERIAL

Defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent provided for in Criminal

Procedure Law Article 245 and/or already provided by the People. If any items set forth

in CPL Article 245 have not already been provided to Defendant pursuant to that Article,

said items are to be provided forthwith. The People acknowledge their continuing

obligation to disclose exculpatory material within their possession and will provide any

such material to the defendant.

6. MOTION FOR A RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO MAKE FURTHER PRE-

TRIAL MOTIONS

The defendant requests leave to make further motions as necessary. The

defendant's motion is denied. CPL 255.20 is controlling with respect to the time frame for

making pre-trial motions and there have been no allegations of good cause for making

further motions outside of those time constraints. Any such request will be considered at

the time it is made.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

Dated: August 23, 2021

White Plains, New York

HON. SU

6

[* 6]

To: Hon. Miriam E. Rocah

Westchester County District Attorney

111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

White Plains, New York 10601

Att: Janelle G. Armentano, Esq.

Assistant District Attorney

An_gelo G. MacDonald., Esq.

Attorney for Defendant

200 West 60 th Street, Suite 3C

New York, New York 10023

7

[* 7]