People v Stevens

[*1] People v Stevens 2004 NY Slip Op 51866(U) Decided on December 2, 2004 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Doyle, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 2, 2004
Supreme Court, Suffolk County

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

against

Eric Stevens, Defendant.



1421-2004



THOMAS J. SPOTA, SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

By: Kate Wagner, Esq.

200 Center Drive

Riverhead, New York 11901

DEFENDANT'S ATTY:

CRAIG McELWEE, ESQ.

152 West Hoffman Avenue, Suite 6

Lindenhurst, New York 11757

Robert W. Doyle, J.

Defendant, Eric L. Stevens, charged in this indictment with one count of Robbery in the First Degree, one count of Kidnapping in the Second Degree and two counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, has moved for multiple items of pretrial relief. The People have submitted an affirmation in opposition to the motion.

Defendant seeks an order pursuant to CPL 710 suppressing certain physical evidence seized by members of the Suffolk County Police Department upon the ground that such evidence [*2]was the result of an illegal stop and detention of defendant. According to defendant, he was stopped on June 2, 2004 by two individuals who identified themselves as detectives from the Suffolk County Police Department. Defendant asserts that these individuals ordered him to discard a cigarette he was smoking and questioned him about a stolen bicycle. It is defendant's position that this stop and detention of him was without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed or was about the commit a crime and that the seizure of the cigarette, resulting from the stop, was illegal.

Defendant further asserts that on June 12, several detectives approached him at his place of employment regarding a charge of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and was asked to accompany the detectives to the precinct. Defendant contends that at that time, he was already represented by counsel on that charge and that the contact was in violation of his right to counsel. Defendant claims that only upon arrival at the police precinct was he notified that the detectives sought to question him about new allegations of Robbery and Kidnapping. Defendant alleges that upon being advised of the new charges, he requested the assistance of counsel but was denied access to an attorney. Defendant further alleges that he was subsequently placed in a line-up and that prior to the line-up, he heard a male voice identify defendant's position in the line-up and thereby improperly suggested to the witness the identity of defendant.

Initially, the Court must determine whether defendant has alleged a sufficient factual basis in order to require that a suppression hearing be held in order to resolve the issues raised by him. CPL 710.60 provides the procedural framework for determining whether a hearing is necessary. The Court may summarily deny the motion without conducting a hearing if the motion papers do not allege a ground constituting a legal basis for the motion or if the sworn allegations of fact set forth in defendant's motion papers "do not allege a ground constituting legal basis for the motion" (CPL 710.60 subd 3 [a]). If however, the Court does not either summarily deny or grant the motion then "it must conduct a hearing and make findings of fact essential to the determination thereof" (CPL 710.60 subd 4). As the Court of Appeals has held, "(i)t is fundamental that a motion may be decided without a hearing unless the papers submitted raise a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue" (People v. Gruden, 42 NY2d 214, 215, 397 NYS2d 704). The determination of whether sufficient facts have been alleged is not an easy task. "Courts often struggle...with the threshold determination whether assertions in defendant's motion papers are factual or 'merely legal conclusions' " (People v. Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 426, 604 NYS2d 922).

In this instance, defendant has alleged sufficient facts to entitle him to a pre-trial hearing. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a hearing will be held prior to trial to determine whether there was a basis for the initial stop of defendant at which time defendant alleges that a cigarette butt was obtained from him and whether there was a basis for the "arrest" of defendant and his subsequent placement in a line-up. Further, based upon defendant's sworn allegations of fact, there will also be a pre-trial hearing regarding the suggestiveness of the line-up. In addition, defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine the voluntariness of any oral or written statements made by him to law enforcement personnel. [*3]

To the extent defendant seeks a "Sandoval hearing" to determine the scope of cross examination of defendant regarding prior criminal, vicious or immoral acts should he testify at trial, that application is also granted to the extent that a hearing will be held immediately prior to trial to determine the limits of such cross examination. The People have stated that they will provide defendant with instances of defendant's prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct which they intend to use at trial should defendant testify prior to the commencement of jury selection.

The People acknowledge their obligation under Brady v. Maryland (373 US 83) and represent to the Court that they will discharge their duty accordingly. That application is therefore denied.

To the extent that defendant seeks discovery and a bill of particulars, it does appear that the People have provided defendant with discovery material on July 21, 2004 and acknowledge their continuing obligation to provide items as they become available.

Dated: December 2, 2004

J.S.C.