The opinion
People v Moore
2023 NY Slip Op 34715(U)
June 30, 2023
Supreme Court, Westchester County
Docket Number: Ind. No. 23-70836-001
Judge: Robert A. Neary
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.
• I
FILED
AND
ENTERED
ON 6 '.j () · - . 2 oJ3
WESTCHESTER
COUNTY CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
------------------------------------ -------------------------;---X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
- against - DECISION AND ORDER
REESE MOORE, Ind. No. 23-70836-001
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
NEARY, J.
The defendant, Reese Moore, has been charged with the crimes of
Attempted Robbery in the First Degree (three counts), Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree,
Attempted Assault in the First Degree (two counts), Assault in the Second Degree (two counts)
and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree. The· defendant has made an omnibus
motion which consists of a Notice of Motion and an Affirmation and Memorandum of Law in
support thereof. In response, the People have filed an Affirmation in Opposition together with a
[* 1]
People v. Reese Moore
. Indictment No. 23-70836-001
Memorandum of Law. Having read all of the submitted papers and reviewed the court file, this
Court makes the following determ1nation.
1. and 2. MOTION TO INSPECT AND DISMISS OR REDUCE CHARGES IN THE
INDICTMENT and MOTION TO INSPECT AND RELEASE GRAND JURY
MINUTES TRANSCRIBED IN THIS CASE
The defendant's motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes is granted. Upon an in
camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes by Court, the motion to dismiss the indictment or
reduce a charged offense in the indictment is denied.
The Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceeding before the Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury was properly instructed (See People v. Ca/bud, 49 NY2d 389,426 NYS2d 389,
4-02 NE2d 1140 and People v. Valles, 62 NY2d 36,476 NYS2d 50,464 NE2d 418) and the
evidence presented, if accepted as true would be legally sufficient to· establish every element of
the offenses cha~ged. [See CPL §210.30(2)]. · In addition, the minutes reveal 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; and that it was instructed that only those grand jurors who
·had heard all the evidence could participate in voting on the matter.
· The Court does not find that the release of the Grand Jury minutes or certain
portions thereof to the parties was necessary to assist the Court in making this determination.
Page 2
[* 2]
People v. Reese Moore
Indictment No. 23-70836-001
3. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS ALLEGED OBTAINED FROM THE
DEFENDANT PURSU~NT TO CPL SECTION 710.20(3) OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE GRANTING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THEIR,
ADMISSIBILITY
This branch of the defendant's motion is granted to the extentthat a Huntley .
hearing shall be held prior to trial to determine whether any statements allegedly made by the
defendant, which have been noticed by the People pursuant to CPL §710.30 (l)(a), were
involuntarily ma~e by the defendant within the meaning of CPL §60.45 (see CPL §710.20(3),
CPL §710.60[3][b]; People v. Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012, 429 NYS2d 399,406 NE2d 1335),
obtained in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and/or obtained in
violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (see Dunaway-v. New York, 442 US 200,
99 S. Ct. 2248, 60 LE2d 824).
4. MOTION TO SUPPRESS ANY AND ALL TESTIMONY REGARDING ANY
IDENTIFICATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT AND ANY OTHER TANGIBLE OR
TESTIMONIAL FRUITS OF THE ILLEGAL SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF THE
DEFENDANT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECTING A WADE/DUNAWAY
HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL SECTIONS 710.(20(6) AND 710.60
This motion is granted to the limited extent of conducting a hearing prior to trial
to determine whether or not the noticed identifications are unduly suggestive. [See United States
v. Wade, 388 US 218, 87 S Ct. 1926, 18 LE2d 1149]. Specifically, the Court·shall determine
·whether the identifications were so improperly suggestive as to taint any in-court identification.
In the event the identifications are found to be unduly suggestive, the Court shall then go on to
Page 3
[* 3]
People v. Reese Moore
Indictment No. 23-70836-001
consider whether the People have proven by, clear and convincing evidence that an indep~ndent
· source exists for such witness' proposed in-court identification.
The hearing will also address whether any identifying witness had a prior familiarity
with either defendant, the basis of which would render that witness impervious to s1,1ggestion with
respect to any identification procedure.· (See People v. Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445].
As to any viewing of surveillance videos depicting portions of the crime in progress,
the motion to suppress is denied as such viewii:igs do not constitute identification procedures within
the meaning of CPL 710.30. No selection process is involved and the identifying witness was
present in the video. [See People v. Gee, 99 NY2d 158]. This is not the type of procedure which is
subject to suppression.
5. MOTION TO GRANT A SEVERANCE OF COUNTS EIGHT THROUGH TEN OF THE
INDICTMENT FROM COUNTS ONE THROUGH SEVEN
The defendant moves to sever the counts related to each of the two underlying
I . .
incidents contained in the instant indictment. The Co~ finds that the co_unts were properly
joined pursuant to CPL §200.20(2)(c) which authorizes joinder of charges that are based upon
different criminal transactions when those charges are defined by the same or similar statutory
provisions and consequently are the same or similar in law. Moreover" ... a strong public
policy favors joinder, because it expedites the judicial process, reduc~s court congestion, and
avoids the necessity ofrecalling witnesses .... " [See People v. Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 1·74, ·
183].
Page 4
[* 4]
People v. Reese Moore
Indictment No. 23-70836-001
. .
The Court finds that the charges are properly joined and the defendant has not
demonstrated that he would be~unfairly prejudiced by a trial on all the joined charges. The
defendant's motion is, therefore, denied.
6. MOTION FOR A PRE-TRIAL "VOLUNTARINESS HEARING" TO DETERMINE
THE VOLUNTARINESS OF UNNOTICED STATEMENTS MADE BY THE
DEFENDANT TO POLICE OFFICERS THAT THE PEOPLE INTEND TO USE ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO CPL SECTIONS 60.45 AND 710.20(3)
AND DIRECTING THE PEOPLE TO DISCLOSE TO THE DEFENDANT THE
CONTENT OF ALL SUCH STATEMENTS PRIOR TO HOLDING THE PRE-TRIAL .
VOLUNTARINESS HEARING
The defendant's motion is denied as speculative and premature.
7. MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE NOT NOTICED PURSUANT TO CPL
SECTION 710.30(3) 1
1 The defendant's motion is denied as speculative and premature.
I
8. MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FROM INTRODUCING
AT TRIAL EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CONVICTIONS OR BAD
ACTS PURSUANT TO PEOPLE V-SANDOVAL AND ITS PROGENCY PEOPLE V
, MOLINEUX OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE GRANTING A HEARIN'G
Immediately prior to commencement of jury selection, the prosecutor shall, upon
request of the defendant, notify the defendant of any prior criminal act which the _People seek to
use in the cross-examination of the defendant as well as all specific instances of the defendant's
prior uncharged criminal, vicious or il11Il:1oral conduct of which the prosecutor has knowledge
Page 5
[* 5]
.....
People v. Reese Moore
Indictment No. 23-70836-001
/
and which the prosecutor intends to use at trial for the purposes of impeaching the credibility of
!
the defendant. Thereafter, upon the defendant's request, the trial court shall conduct a Sandoval
and/or Ventimiglia hearing prior to the commencement of trial. [See People v. Sandoval, 34
NY2d 371 (1974); People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 (1981); People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264
(1901)].
9. MOTION TO RESERVE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITION MOTION
AS NECESSARY
Upon a proper showing, the.Court will entertain appropriate additional motions
based upon grounds of which the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously
· aware, or which, for other good cause, could not reasonab.ly have been raised in this motion.
[See CPL §255.20(3)].
This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court.
Dated: White Plains, New York
June 30, 2023
ROBERT A. NE
SUPREME COURT
Page 6
[* 6]
" e " •
People v. Reese Moore
Indictment No. 23-70836-001
Elizabeth H. Shumejda
Assistant District Attorney
Westchester County
Office of the District Attorney
Richard J. Daronco Co'urthouse
111 Martin Luther King Blvd.
White Plains, New York 10601
eshumejda@westchesterda.net
David C. Hymen, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Reese Moore
Office of Clare J. Degnan, Esq.
Legal Aid Society
150 Grand Street, Suite 100
. White Plains, New York 10.601
· dhymen@laswest.org
Page 7 .-
[* 7]