People v Davis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

People v Davis 2007 NY Slip Op 34577(U) December 12, 2007 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 07-1077 Judge: Lester B. Adler 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 SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ------------------------------------------------------------------)( ON I :1.,"/7y2007 WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -againstCARLOS JEAN-BAPTISTE, a/k/a "C.J.," LLOYD BRAHAM, WARREN DAVIS a/k/a 'STONE," ANDREW CREWE a/k/a 'KILLER," Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------)( ADLER, J. Defendant stands accused under Indictment No.: 07-1077 of two counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law §125.25[3]), six counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law§166.15[1], [2] & [4]), three counts of burglary in the first degree (PL§140.30[1 ], [2] & [4]), and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the I second degree tPenal Law §265.03[3]). By notice of motion dated November 8, 2007, with accompanying affirmation and memorandum of law, defendant moves for omnibus relief. In response, the People have submitted an affirmation in opposition dated December 5, 2007, with accompanying memorandum of law. It is alleged that on or about June 29, 2007, the defendant, Warren Davis, a/k/a "Stone," while in the vicinity of 138 West 4th Street in the City of Mount Vernon, New York, and while aiding, abetting and acting in concert with the co-defendants and at least two other unapprehended individuals, did unlawfully enter the premises of the :1 basement apartment located at the above address with the intent to steal property from the occupants thereof. It is further alleged that during the course of the commission of Oo [* 2] the robbery, the co-defendant Carlos Jean-Baptiste intentionally shot Neville Brett in the back as he lay face down on the floor thereby causing his death. • The motion is disposed of as follows: A. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION Defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent provided for in Criminal Procedure Law Article 240. If any items set forth in CPL Article 240 have not been provided to the defendant pursuant to the consent discovery order in the instant matter, said items are to be provided forthwith. The People recognize their continuing duty to disclose exculpatory material (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.E.2d 215 and Giglio v. United ' States, 405 U.S(. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.E.2d 104) at the earliest possible date. If the People are or become aware of any material which is arguable exculpatory but they are not willing to consent to its disclosure, they are directed to disclose such material to the Court for its in camera inspection and determination as to whether such will be disclosed to the defendant. The People also recognize their continuing duty to disclose any written or recorded statement of a witness whom they intend to call at trial or a pre-trial hearing regarding the sllbject matter of the testimony which is in their possession or control. Defendant's motion for early discovery is denied (see CPL §§240.44 & 240.45). To any further extent, the application is denied as seeking material or information beyond the scope of discovery (see People v. Colavito, 87 N.Y.2d 423, 639 N.Y.S.2d 996, 663 N.E.2d 308; Matter of Brown v. Grosso, 285 A.D.2d 642, 729 N.Y.S.2d 492, 2 [* 3] Iv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 605, 737 N.Y.S.2d 52, 762 N.E.2d 930; Matter of Brown v. Appelman, 241A.D.2d279, 672 N.Y.S.2d 373; Matter of Catterson v. Jones, 229 A.D.2d 435, 644 N.Y.S.2d 573; Matter of Catterson v. Rohl, 202 A.D.2d 420, 608 N.Y.S.2d 696; Iv. denied83 N.Y.2d 755, 613 N.Y.S.2d 127, 241N.E.2d279). B. . MOTION FOR SANDOVAUVENTIMIGLIA HEARING 1. Sandoval - Granted solely to the extent that a Sandoval hearing shall be held immediately prior to trial at which time: A., The People must notify the defendant of all specific instances of the defendant's prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct of which the People have knowledge and which the People intend to use at trial for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the defendant (see CPL §240.43); and B. Defendant must then sustain his burden of informing the Court of the prior misconduct which might unfairly affect him as a witness in his own behalf (see People v. Malphurs, 111 A.D.2d 266, 489 N.Y.S.2d 102, Iv. denied 66 N.Y.2d 616, 494 ., N.Y.S.2d 1039, 485 N.E.2d 243). 2. Ventimiglia - The People's papers appear to indicate that they have no evidence of any prior bad acts of the defendant which they intend to introduce at trial. Accordingly, the request for a Ventimiglia hearing is denied at the current time. In the event that the People subsequently determine that they will seek to introduce such evidence, they shall so notify the Court and defense counsel and a Ventimiglia hearing (see People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59) shall be '.J held immediately prior to trial to determine whether or not any evidence of uncharged 3 \. [* 4] crimes may be used by the People to prove their case in chief. The People are urged to make an appropriate decision in this regard sufficiently in advance of trial to allow any Ventimiglia hearing to be consolidated and held with the other hearings herein. C. MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICED STATEMENTS This branch of defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a Huntley hearing shall be held prior to trial to determine whether any statements allegedly made by him, which have been noticed by the People pursuant to CPL §710.30(1 )(a), were involuntarily made within the meaning of CPL §60.45 (see CPL §710.20(3); CPL §710.60[3][b]; People v. Weaver, 49 N.Y.2d 1012, 429 N.Y.S.2d 399, 406 N.E.2d 1335), and/or w~re obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. D. MOTION TO INSPECT THE GRAND JURY MINUTES AND TO DISMISS AND/OR REDUCE THE INDICTMENT Defendant's motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes is granted. Upon inspection, the motion to dismiss the indictment or reduce a charged offense in the indictment is denied. On consent of the People, the Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceedings before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was properly instructed (see People v. Calbu,d, 49 N.Y.2d 389, 426 N.Y.S.2d 389, 402 N.E.2d 1140 and People v. ' Valles, 62 N.Y.2d 36, 476 N.Y.S.2d 50, 464 N.E.2d 418), and the evidence presented, if accepted as true, would be legally sufficient to establish every element of the offenses charged (see CPL §210.30[2]). In addition, the minutes reveal that a quorum of the grand jurors were present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the district attorney instructed the Grand Jury on the law. 4 [* 5] In making this determination, the Court does not find that release of the Grand Jury minutes or certain portions thereof to the parties was necessary to assist the Court. E. MOTION TO SEVER Defendant's motion for severance pursuant to Bruton v. United States (391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476), is denied as premature. Until the Huntley hearings are conducted as to both defendant and his co-defendant, it is not possible to determine whether the holding in Bruton is applicable. This denial is without prejudice to renew the motion at a more appropriate time (see CPL §255.20[3]). F. MOTION FOR TIME TO FILE FUTURE MOTIONS Denied. Any future motions must be brought by way of order to show cause setting forth reasons as to why said motion was not brought in conformity with CPL §255.20. G. MOTION' TO CONDUCT PRE-TRIAL HEARINGS TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL Defendant's motion to schedule pre-trial hearings two weeks prior to trial is denied. The hearings will be scheduled at a time that is convenient to the Court, upon due consideration of all of its other cases and obligations. Dated: White Plains, New York December 12, 2007 YOUNG & BARTLETT, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Warren Davis 5 [* 6] 81 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 By: Mayo Gregory Bartlett, Esq. HON. JANET DiFIORE District Attorney, Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard White Plains, New York 10601 BY: Robert K. Sauer, Esq. Assistant District Attorney 6

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.