People v Flowers

[*1] People v Flowers 2005 NY Slip Op 50269(U) Decided on January 19, 2005 County Court, Nassau County Sullivan, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 19, 2005
County Court, Nassau County

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

against

COREY FLOWERS, Defendant.



940 N-04



HONORABLE DENIS DILLON

District Attorney

Nassau County

By: Robert Hayden

Assistant District Attorney

Defense Counsel:

STEVEN R. BARNWELL, Esq.

33 WILLIS AVENUE, SUITE 101

MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501

David P. Sullivan, J.

Counsel for defendant submitted a Motion to Reconsider, dated January 7, 2005, wherein he urges this Court to reinspect the Grand Jury minutes based upon the intervening Court of Appeals decision in People vs. Payne; unpublished (dated October 19, 2004).

The People, in their Affirmation in Opposition dated January 10, 2005, reject the defendant's assertion that the decision in Payne precluded the Grand Jury from handing up an indictment charging the defendant with both intentional murder and depraved indifference/reckless murder.

Based upon the Defendants Motion to Reconsider dated January 7, 2005, the People's Affidavit In Opposition dated January 10, 2005, and the applicable law, the Defendant's Motion [*2]is decided as follows:

The Court grants the Defendant's Motion to reconsider and after a reconsideration and reinspection of the Grand Jury minutes in light of the Payne decision, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to dismiss either count of Murder in the Second Degree as handed up by the Grand Jury in Indictment 940N04.

The evidence presented to the Grand Jury indicates that the defendant told a detective that he believed that the young men who he shot at, including the victim, had beat him up and robbed him.

The defendant also told the detective that he was driving a car while firing gunshots at the young men, including the victim, who were standing on the opposite side of the street and then attempted to flee, as defendant continued to drive and fire gunshots.

The evidence presented to the Grand Jury suggests that seven gunshots in total were discharged, one of which hit the window of a nearby third-floor apartment.

The evidence as presented to the Grand Jury in the instant case can be differentiated from PAYNE and is more akin to the line of cases discussed in Sanchez, People v Sanchez, 98 NY2d.373(2002). As in Sanchez, the defendant's acts in the present case put not only the victim's life in danger but other peoples' lives in danger as well. In a situation like this the Court allows depraved indifference murder and intentional murder to lie. People v. Fenner, 61N.Y.2d 971(1984); People v. Sanchez, infra.

This Court, after a review and reconsideration of the sufficiency of the Grand Jury charges, adheres to the decision of Hon. Daniel Cotter, J.C.C., dated August 9, 2004, finding that the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support each of the crimes charged. CPL 210.30.

Defendant's Motion is therefore denied in its entirety. This matter remains calendared for hearing on January 21, 2004 at 9:30am.

The foregoing represents the Order and decision of the Court.

SO ORDERED

Dated: January 19, 2005E N T E R

David P. Sullivan, J.C.C.