People v Villareal

[*1] People v Villareal 2012 NY Slip Op 51313(U) Decided on July 17, 2012 Supreme Court, Kings County D'Emic, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 17, 2012
Supreme Court, Kings County

The People of the State of New York

against

Nathan Villareal, Defendant.



3409/12



Attorney for the People:

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr.

Richmond County District Attorney

130 Stuyvesant Place

Staten Island, NY 10301

by ADA Rhiannon Haddad

Attorney for the Defendant:

Kenneth Womble, Esq.

Brooklyn Defender Services

177 Livingston Street, 5th Floor

Brooklyn, NY 11201

Matthew J. D'Emic, J.

Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his right to testify before the grand jury was violated by the district attorney (CPL 190.50 [5]). Specifically, the defendant contends that the presenting prosecutor's questions about his prior convictions and a prior bad act against the complainant impaired the integrity of the proceeding and essentially denied him the right to testify.

The motion is denied.

The defendant, with his lawyer present, exercised his right to tell his story to the grand jury. The prosecutor did not interrupt him and it was only after he concluded his statement that she asked him about nine prior convictions. She then proceeded to question him about the allegations and probed his own statement. The prosecutor also gave the grand jurors limiting instructions with respect to the prior convictions and prior bad acts. [*2]

Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the defendant's right to testify was denied. He told his story uninterrupted. Although defense counsel believed the assistant district attorney was not going to go into the nature of the convictions, it was within her discretion to do so (People v Thomas, 213 AD2d 73; CPL 190.30 [7]).

In sum, nothing in the presentation rises to the degree of corruption of the integrity of the proceedings sufficient to warrant dismissal of the indictment (People v Davis, 83 AD3d 1210; People v Meleance, 52 AD3d 845; People v Mujahid, 45 AD3d 1184).

Additionally, the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the charges.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

____________________________

Matthew J. D'Emic

J.S.C.