People v Filauri

[*1] People v Filauri 2005 NY Slip Op 52141(U) [10 Misc 3d 1064(A)] Decided on December 22, 2005 District Court Of Nassau County, First District St. George, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 22, 2005
District Court of Nassau County, First District

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

against

Jeffrey Filauri, Defendant.



17003/05

Norman St. George, J.

Defendant moves this Court to dismiss the information against him pursuant to C.P.L.§140.10(1), 170.30, 170.35, 100.15, and 100.40 based on the assertion that the informations are facially insufficient.

The Defendant is charged with violating Penal Law Section 120.14(1), Menacing in the Second Degree as a Class A Misdemeanor, and Penal Law Section 265.01(2), Possession of a Dangerous Weapon in the 4th Degree as a Class A Misdemeanor.

Menacing in the 2nd Degree:

The Misdemeanor Complaint alleges that on June 27, 2005, the defendant held a hunting knife to his own throat and stated to the complainant "I can go and kill the Landlord, the Landlord's daughter and then take care of you and me". The Complaint further alleges that the complainant Lornette Williams, then three months pregnant, felt in fear for her life and the life of her unborn child.

Defendant contends that the allegation that the defendant held a hunting knife to his own throat is insufficient to make out a charge of Menacing in the Second Degree. The People respond that the defendant's act of displaying the knife combined with his threatening statements, placed the complainant in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury, or death. The People contend that the defendant's argument is wholly without merit, lacks any legal authority, and should be dismissed in its entirety.

Penal Law Section 120.14.(1), provides as follows: [*2]

A person is guilty of Menacing in the Second Degree when:

1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm ...

It is well settled that a hunting knife is a dangerous instrument, and this Court holds accordingly. Next, a plain reading of the relevant portion of the statute indicates that it is the act of displaying the deadly weapon or dangerous instrument and the instilling of fear which triggers the crime. The statute does not require that the display of the deadly weapon or dangerous instrument be in any specific manner, within any specific distance, or even that it be used or threatened to be used against the complainant. In essence, the crime of menacing requires the defendant's intentional mental state in conjunction with the display of the dangerous or deadly instrument and the resulting fear created therefrom. Consequently, whether the defendant brings the deadly weapon or dangerous instrument near the complainant or not is of no import. The defendants act in allegedly raising a hunting knife to his own neck in conjunction with allegedly threatening to kill third persons including the complainant, is clearly an act that can reasonably instill fear in the complainant.

Therefore, this Court holds that the defendants alleged act of holding a hunting knife to his own neck while threatening to kill the complainant and others is facially sufficient to make out the charge of Menacing in the 2nd Degree.

Possession of a Dangerous Weapon in the 4th Degree:

The Defendant argues that if the charge of 120.14(1) is insufficient then the charge of 265.01(2) is similarly insufficient. Defendants argument is moot since this Court holds that the charge of 120.14(1) is sufficient.

Payton Hearing:

Defendant's motion for a Payton hearing is denied. Firstly, there is no evidence that the defendant lived at the address in which he was arrested. Moreover, the Police received a call for a burglary in progress and responded to the basement apartment where the Defendant was arrested. Upon the Police arriving at the scene, they were informed by the landlord that the Defendant was the ex-boyfriend of the complainant, that the complainant previously broke off the relationship and that the Defendant no longer resided in the basement apartment. Based on that information, and the exigent circumstances presented, the Police entered the basement apartment and arrested the Defendant. A Payton hearing is only warranted when a warrantless arrest of the Defendant is effectuated while a Defendant is in his home and where there are no exigent circumstance.

Huntley Hearing:

Defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing is granted.

Map Hearing:

Defendant's motion to suppress any and all physical evidence seized from him is denied. Defendant's motion for a "Mapp" hearing is granted. Defendant has alleged facts and circumstances regarding the seizure of the hunting knife which necessitates a hearing.

[*3]Sandoval Hearing:

2. Defendant's motion for a pretrial "Molineaux/Ventimiglia/Sandoval" hearing is granted. Said hearing(s), if appropriate, shall be conducted immediately prior to trial.

This matter will proceed to trial on January 24, 2006.

Dated: December 22, 2005

ENTER:

____________________________________

Norman St. George, District Court Judge

cc: Nassau County District Attorney's Office

Legal Aid Society