People v Murray
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Murray 2012 NY Slip Op 33849(U) December 11, 2012 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 12-1281 Judge: Barbara G. Zambelli Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] FILED AND ENTERED ON COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER / THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK bec. I\ 20\Q WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK DECISION & ORDER Ind. No.: 12-1281 -againstJOHN MURRAY and BEATRICE CAMPER, Defendants. ZAMBELLI, J. The People move by notice of motion with accompanying affirmation and memorandum of law pursuant to CPL §240.40(2)(b)(v) for an order requiring defendant John Murray to permit the taking of DWA. samples from his body, specifically by a buccal swab of his mouth. Defendant Murray and co-defendant Beatrice Camper have been indicted and charged with acting in concert to commit the crime of murder in the second degree as to the homicide of Camper's husband, whom, on October 3, 2012, was found dead in his taxi, having been shot in the back of his head; in addition to the murder in the second degree charge, defendant Murray alone is charged with murder in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The People submit that as part of their search of the victim's vehicle, the police took swabs of the victim's wallet, a live .25 caliber round found in the vehicle's back seat and one shell casing also found in the rear seat, the victim's cellular telephone, and also took swabs from several areas in the victim's vehicle, including six swabs from the door handles and releases therein. They John Munay, Ind. No.: 10-0611. -1- [* 2] i I allege that on October 22, 2012, they received a request from the Westchester County Department of Laboratories and Research for buccal exemplars from both defendants, as there are •results pending" on the items of evidence that have been submitted to the lab for forensic testing. The only result that the People have received thus far was from the swab taken from the rear driver interior door handle, which revealed the presence of possible epithelial cells which matched the CODIS DNA profile of the victim's nephew, who was often in the vehicle. There are no results as yet for the remaining swabs. The People submit that upon receipt of a known buccal sample from the defendants, a DNA comparison can be made between the defendants' known DNA profiles and that of the profiles "to be generated" from the evidence recovered in the case. However, the People fail to indicate whether it has been determined that any of the remaining swabs have DNA or even have cells of the type from which DNA can be expected to be found in the first instance. In response, the defense has submitted an affirmation in opposition and memorandum of law which alleges that the People have failed to meet their burden in demonstrating probable cause for the taking of such buccal swabs because the People failed to establish that any of the items recovered as evidence and submitted to the lab in fact contain any DNA or that any of the samples contain a profile that is unknown absent an exemplar from the defendant, whose DNA profile is already in the CODIS system. Defendant submits that the samples should first be tested to determine whether they contain any DNA and then a profile should be generated and compared to the victim and uploaded to CODIS to avoid any contamination or cross-contamination. A Court order to obtain a DNA sample from a defendant may issue where the John Murray, Ind. No.: 1~11 -2- [* 3] People establish that (1) probable cause that defendant committed the charged crimes, (2) (2) a "clear indication" that relevant material evidence will be found and (3) that the method used to secure it, a buccal swab, is safe and reliable (see Matter of Abe A., 56 N.Y.2d 288, 291 (1982)). Here, the People have established probable cause based upon the indictment handed down by the grand jury before whom the evidence against the defendants were presented (People v. Pryor, 14 A.D.3d 723, 725 (3d Dept. 2005); ~ denjed, 6 N.Y.3d 779 (2006)). There is also no dispute herein that the proposed method to be used to secure a defendant's DNA, a buccal swab, is safe and reliable. However, the People's application fails to meet the second prong of the Matter of Abe A. test in that they have not established that relevant material evidence will be found should defendant be ordered to provide a DNA sample. Aside from the swab which revealed epithelial cells ultimately determined to match the profile of the victim's nephew, the People have not established that there is any DNA at all on any of the other swabs taken in this case which could be compared to any sample given by the defendant, let alone that any swabs have been found to contain DNA profiles that match that of defendant which is already in the CODIS system. Accordingly, the People have failed to establish that there is a clear indication that relevant material evidence will be found via a buccal swab of defendant ~ People v. Voat. 26 Misc. 3d 1222(A) (Sup. Ct. West Co. 2010); see §]§Q Matter of Anonymous v. Caccjabaudo, 153 A.D.2d 856, 858 (2d Dept. 1989), film. dismissed, 74 N.Y.2d 890 (1989)). The motion is therefore denied with leave to renew should DNA profiles be developed from the remaining evidence in the case. John Murray. Ind. No.: 10--0611 -3- [* 4] .. ~.. ~ . ,'\ This Decision constitutes the Order of the Court. Dated: White Plains, New York Decemberll , 2012 B~I COUNTY COURT JUDGE Hon. Janet DiFiore District Attorney, Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. White Plains, New York 10601 Attn: Laura M. Murphy, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Office of John F. Ryan, Esq. The Legal Aid Society of Westchester County One North Broadway White Plains, New York 10601 Attn: Ada D. Medina, Esq. Nancy Barry, Esq. Chief Clerk John Murray. Ind. No.: 10.Q611 -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
