People v Drayton

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

People v Drayton 2010 NY Slip Op 33982(U) October 28, 2010 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 5347/2010 Judge: John P. Walsh 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] l SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF covNTY OFJQNllS :;'CRIMINAL TElflftf\p 11 '. TBEPlt()lti~OFT~STATEOFNEWVORK, ' , ·! ' ,, ~' , By: ' JOHN)'. WAtsa , , J.s.c:::> ' ·, , ~against Dalted: O~t6:11er 28,12010 Indictment No~,5347/lOlO DAVQUAN DRA\'TON, DECISJON ttnd ORDER Def~ndant ,.,The.~Qtln.hasre.ad the GrandJu11: .qrh111tes and exa~ine<l t~e presentation.°"fthe evidelce before:ttie Grand Jury incamera·tor the.purposes ot(l) determlldna,rhether the ··People's prese,n~t!orf .l~gq1ly sufficient tO ~upp()rt the cou1ti. in th~ 4u4i~~ent, (2) was , s provided to the G . . . ~hetlier t~e instruc r . /enfl . th-I u~'~enf!·lm:ebse.l'.. . · pmea*8tlt>n'J._pai.r~ the integrltY of the Ota ".::, · were pr4)pe1, (3) " ....crt:~ti<,1~(4) ~hetii" . ·.~ury':procet)dings. ·· 'In reviewing these minutes and the People's presentation for legal suffidency, tile court must view the evidence in the light molt favorable to the People (P1011k f· Wt1,rner~ . LcmJ!frtt;,4, ~l NY2d2?5, 299) a8:d co11sider.wbet'1erthat evid~nce,.~h~lt vie~edin that lilbt; i(:~V,!'J~"'cl and.~ncontradicted~pd,:ide&r~~g ~u. questions as to'the e!idence's w,jg.t ij~J1\taDtfj war~anu a ·convictiop; ·. . , ' ., Y';'< . A:•' ... . . ··· · TJle People. are required to establish a prlma /acia cask (J!egplft; M4ea, 36 NV2d tooi at 10'04; f'tie. "'Grand J"ry may notlnatm.~~lets Ii• Peopl~ prese u . ... .· .· ~blis~ing ~1'~iJ!t.aTacla ·case of erimin~I, oondaet~~ tsee. PQlf. y. DMaleqJ!l•.. . . 1•. AD2d 117, .. · . llfl'd. 'J.~ ~fV2d"5'3; Pf!lllle. \!r ltWJinM, 69 NJM:lol at 1141). Tlie GranfJ Jui-f does not sit N ... ·.••• •. ... tod~termiut't~~l~t, or~!DO~!-gtt!~t .~fa······ .· ·. ... nf (peQ/Jle V. Sw,qefµz, 84.NY%tl125,.129). Ra t.it's st~s ~tp as5es~.~hether.tn•r~ ,. .· · te baSis for l>--ging a ~ar~)large" . . · · . 504 l.J.S.' 36). "As· Jona,~. tll ·. ll~ l':try could, tationallypave 'dtawn · · the guilty. n .nee,'' ttie evidence is legally, 11fttcieijt (f,fllllt{ Tlmga. 6g N'f2d 976 ~t v. '7')~ Tba.t other Jnnotent interent.:\11 could h,ave also radonaHy been lnade by tlhi Granil Jury is irrel~a)lt <RmH, supra, at 979}! ''T~e prlmliry fQnction of the <;'.rand Jury in our syste(ll is to investigate cri(lleS and det.emtine 'wh,ther sufficient evi,denee •ists to ~eeuse ~ eitlZ•~. ota cri•~"Pti 1qb!!~t hi,ltl ~r h~rtO· · ·M:•=1 49N. Y.·.···"'·d.. )lj'89 .. t3.9.4),."' . ... , .. .. !W..!I!!.' . . •.. .•.11. · ., •• a . • ilt,~lpr0secu~<>n'' (fitiJf,'•· CMW lac.. .. . . . ........ ,.... . ... . . ) ~ .;, . . 5e~}9C1~6S(t} ..uth~r.tz~ a~ ~~die~~~j1 wllen."{a) u1e"evi$l~itte bt;fOr~lri!J~~ suffi~ient toestablish that such person commifted su'Ch offense· ••." (legalsurticiency) · "and (h) competent and admissible evidence before it·provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed such offense" (reasonable cause). [* 2] .. · · ~t•pllJ suftlaentevtdepee," a Put.ll'+ .·' ·>ep:y:~e,pt, i• ".~·~P~OJij ~~i,i~te \fhi~h. ... if: accepted as true, would •establi1h .weti1 eleijleh ·~f 10 off•nse .chtrge4 and t~~ . ..· det~4tUttt~ ~9~~ion •thereof" (CPL 70·~~[~\)i'~Re~sonable eau•c .~· bel~~Y~;*Ji~t,~ ...•.. · · Pt1'~lf~qbtlllttt~d an offen~e exists when evid!1"~ ~r infonnatio~ wb1'h app~itl !°)~•bl~ · disd«Mes fa~tl or cjreumstuces which a.re col~•lY of such we~gh~ udp·~"~1,r,enJ?1s .· tt• *9··~~~,it~~ a perio11 of ordinary intelli&ence;.iu~pnint and eiperlenee tljat itJ1 .. ·.. ~easonatily UkelY that sutb oflense w•s·¢otnttdttecl'andJbat sQcb·perso11: eomD?:iffed it"· ·· · (CPL;'l'Q.lQf~J)("~~e>n,111>c:1, (!Jluse focuses 1)4\t~tlter the evidence 9 ~f s.~~i~itt weig~t 1Uld l1'rtllasl\teness to establish a reasonable. likelihood the defendant eom111itted: the · . offt°'~!'"~tstr. t>racticeJ~ommenblries, CPL 70.10, McKinney's Consolidated. 4w 9f New Y<irk uan~ted). In fulfHllng its funl?tio~ ~eept ~s provkled in GP" .fgo,~; a. . Giatil JQ:,*1 c,te~U,DIJ. ta indict must be based c;IJJ:'8mpeteni$nd dmis1.Jb.le. eliidep.ee . · . . . all4lt1Jli~tl•t bpcll ~o'.:llav.e i-euoaable cat1~•~~::1l~~Jitat tht ae~uecl eoa1idlted an offeQse {s~i 1>e@l4 ti. lkJ!tl~ 15 NY2d 590). . · · · . .• . . . ,c, ', ,, ' ' ' '' . ··. ' .. •. ,' ·SJ~eo Cft 190.()5{1) esfablishu two''evi~ntiary r~uln111e°'t1 f4r'.,Qrittfti~t.J~ . .. deto.' · . . ·. ~egar· . . .·. .· . . ...({:P~.1~.fi~[lJ(al;<. ~Pt 1V~ioJ'incl reuona1Jle·ea~~ {0I/ ..· · · . ·· i cPt :1'!;'10), lltt ~ouJi's revi~w ~~dendary suft1ti,n~f 11·1":>\ ..... ·: tn a ·•· . ~l\Vlt~~.·~ tll;F.•emupet~!lt.•Yl4~. · · ·~1•ab~~es the .eJ~1'•1l~ 4r!CJ.le crtme . · 1 or .. . Cj)(•ee .PeqJ?zc t•. Jl«iqtro, ;s'. .• . . ..·. :1G9};·;~·a r•iltt~ ·~~~uifl.elQi : .· to .· ;authD:ritf to'e~4'miae wb~ther the Grand Jaey~pftl~nation wat suftielent titabtib. re~·,~~e sinee th~t ae~rmiuation is eKelusi:vely tb•tQfthe Grand JvJ'f {tcllftv. 248). . 1 ltttotli :$~.:N\12d ' _, o • '' ~~'""-~', '" ' .,, • ; ,,, \.' N ~' • <,' . ' .... '; · .· . ·. [* 3] Jn .Grand Jury presentations depenJltltwholly on circwnstan~~I e~idenee, a reviewin1conrt's inquiry is limited to "whet,~'' ~e facts, if provenrall~1·!Dfwen~e ~~at loii..lly n w from those faets, supply proof of every element of the ehsn:ge~ erhnea .. (/11,,., supra, at 979)• .~pplyin1.theae general legal ·prblciplea, ~<~he preaeQ~ation updK c~'8fderation, the evld1ne1 presented before jhe Grand J ..ry was lqaUy suftlc1ent to establiSh and support the ftnding(s) in all the count(s) of the indietment(see Peale V• Pck;hl(•i2 !W2d 97; Cal~lfl· lag,. et g[.,., supra).. As to the ed\lrt,s s~ond inquiry, in thilpreaentation, the assist'8Jdittriet attorney eonettly charged the Granr.l Jury with reaped:ito tJie applicable law. The Grand Jury illstNdions under consideration did npt have/to 1Peet 'tbe. Sf\Qie criteria ls.·t11•instructions given to trial Juri• (see C<dfu«llac•• et a,, supra 394). The People's instructions to the Grand:Jury do not have to' be liven with the••• degree: of ptecisi.t>n~llibl11i:ven to a petit·Jury (see PeQJl,lev. V1IJ11,.62 NYld 36). CPL 190.30(7).establith,s.twQ. separate and distinetltandards for instructions applicable to petit jury trials and::fer:'1struofions •ppU.IJle ~· the Grand Juey.. At a;pcdt jurr trial, tbt 'ourt m mandated and ubltgat~ .. "UUJBt" ~ .b1$trllct the jury "with re,sp-.t to tile. si1nifi~•nce, legal effect or evaluation Qf evidence" whUe, in an equivalent situation in a Grand Jury proceeding, the district "•r" atfo11,teJ' so inst,uet (/!ea.ale v. Dm;ir,, 1S NY2d 449). '~The 'istrict .Attorney must give guidaace~ adequate for the Grand Jqry to carry out its function" (J:fql/cisupra). Grand Jury instNetions are "sufflcient if the distnet attorney pro¥ides the Grand Jury with enough information to enable it inteUi1ept)Jto decidt whether:a c~,·~s been committed and to d~~rmiuvr~lletb11" t..re e~~tl le1aUy;~~d~nt evidence to establish the material elementl of the ~rllP~'' <.acllJS' lnc,,ffl«'' supra at:3t4+ 395)( ~:.~•t¥, mllining a failure to properly:b'Jstruet the Gntid Jury pursuant to CPL 1'8.l5(6):~ wh•n neeessary or appropriate, th~ district· attornl)1'mU1t instruct the Grand· Jurf matters .hef~it .. dismissal is not ec>:mp~JI~ &r nee.lily war.ranted. The question tbtel!cwiewing court mustllddress is does the omission of uussary a~ appropriate instructiojls i'1lp•ir t11e:iM•rllf*:.of.tbe G.,.d Jury (PellJJ# tt lilllllGQ~ ·$6 AD~,-1 381; see also Pe@le fa on am":URI.,' [* 4] . . . . .... ~ to :thewri~en .indict~!nt itself wlllcli.·r•.ultsJrom the People.t's Gr1'1d.Jury present,.,t!tin, CPL·i~o.5o·:details its'requistte:rarm·andcontent. At amirtim~hl·,~the indic.itmerit.sht,>:Uld list the name· of the court in Which ·it was ftled, ·the title of th~ itctionra · septt;ratt MW1t for each offense charged, an aeclJ&atory statement by the Grand Jury as' to e~cb , a.statement. ~~at the offense was ~o~ed in a designated count)t·which d'. .. 1. ...·.• tcgeogr•phte·jurisdic~ion and pl'ovlfltll;e• natice··or v~nue (s" Xylt rillltmu:, 3 Ni3d:30,rand·a spee'ft~ltion of date or periotf·rfifJtme of the offense. Whit~ tll•swta-re o~ the for1:per,son a~lglowle4ging the action oft~• Cra1td Jury ill\Pears to be a •tattitoty neces~itJ,PcopJc y. BIJlJJ. 15 Misc.2d .683 held tfiat the foreperson' s 1ignature req.uirement is 1nerely d,irectory and f!ferical in nature, the abs.ence of which is not a gro"nd for ··disJni$saL·.The .sam~ ~oJds true for .the (appa.rent necessity) of the District·Attorney' . . . · s · Jtur'*:jfowev~r,iPeriJ* Vfl San£/fez,. t44 Mis~.24 262, 'held th•t thetyped·na·me of the··· ·.· 'FtAtto~ey ott -e lndletment satisfiesthil"reqpirement ·. c~~tltlm:e .,a.tea; ~~..eet~tdle ~(Jiu .....'4 ftlony" ·cc111rrft&btet certain :limits ll,re placed upon (1) plil btlqabung Od CPL 220~10(SJ(d)(iJ), (2) seriteneing·(at Penal 1'aw 70.02(51),. (3) Juvenile tiffender· removal (af CPL l1D.43[~Jfb)); and (1') y'. jbfut•.oflendett .eligibilitY (at CPL 72&~10{2]), tbe imU~tmerd mus(adyise:tht .~tdftn. ~e bt'feilse is "armed •felt)ny» ln<I specify the \Vefipon usei\'iU''.displayed ~(at'CPL, llO~f1U~J; )ac.,~e.r, the s1rietn~ vf'hi(neeessUy was somewhat.tl&ld wh•n an · intietD:t~aiiw•.a••oied tb~·u~e ofa "'~.and <(i~tenn~t ~~e~fddije(\lii.,h~:P4'~•1 Law}, wiidiout:an~. further detail [see · . · · ·· · · , 72 NYid 846]). Siiltihjrly~ tbe · ·1n<tictment must ad'rise ih:e defendant ii he Js befog charged with a ..hate crime" (at CPL .200~0(-h Penal Law. 485.05{3J) or a "crime of terrorism" (Penal Law 495.0S{S}). AS· the · · · ·. ., t~awpf'1!ldes)p.~ial a~tlition~I 1>enalti~J~tbose eases. Howevert th1'hiuoway · · · an nat~B''ntt•~at fll'ldiqgby ajury- reP..iftitll speciaJ aggravathlg facton·whfcb .elevites.thld.-.~(.tll~ertme (see Atmreatl( r,:.wcw Jcaa~ S30 U.S.·466). ,.>"· ~ ,..>·. ' ~,;,~/,i'b. ·>' ,,, : . . ., ' ,·, "·. . . . ' . .· •· .. " t~~tte>, cPL 20Q.S0(7)(i), Is a)•rittlf~iloi.tl·J'eq~drement~ uii~~i~~--t must. .also·eoiJ)tiU a';'pJainillnd conciff fat:tuat statement tn :each count wllieb, wltll~ut. .· · . · · ,,allegatlons of'.an· .Xid•ntiary nature, asserts fads supporting every:eteme11t:tftbe~ffense · · a~4·~e4efenda'Qt',~;.c@n~i~~.ion t~~·.:tbe statementm.ust. witb•uffidf•t J~t.-rlY:.~PPr!stthe' defendant of Jhe e~,9,u;t,wbtch is the subjeetut the ~otfll. t~te; Ht>w~y~r~wberi'tbe . ·. n~ 'Dils •tr.lie s~isfi~ · ·s~l.idt~.,tkere' is a poasibilffy ot , · QJ~op · ·· .· .t11e·indiet1neJt traeking..tke 'l~nguage atto . .. ·. · fltibied:lolely by tJuHar.gt1ail o( tlie w\1mti,l.t notiit t() tile d~fendapt Vndtrtk~ · clrc.umstanee, su~eieltt faets must be provided.hf way of a BUI of Parlieulan' (s.. PedQI« y,. 8,gda,84NY2d 440.; fl.flll)le v. Gr114, 72 NY2d 489 at 4?5)• . '~i~t'W.tii~IW Clf~ .. · ·. ·'·· ., .'~~ttte:Cll*"ji)arit•o _.t~~ll\\W. .t~i:N•·:~~~~·stat~i c9'5ti~atioaittri . . . fa"~t~n1•;.(l), .. '•g.tk' . . .·bepFOS~t~a on a. · . . ;af· . · · · · ·t:c~oro~fii&io·tlle CPL'sreQ'.Uiftij)"eQJ11and·(3)as ~·deff!n.utt'~;p.o. .... •ic.· · .· ·u~nfl>Mleeution 011 the salqe fa~ l'iolatmg the:eon&$it\ltloall dlllt,.tij he tree . . tlpt,,··Jup11.r4y (sebeJ1l< ~ <ir«'llli.~!\Po). ·· · [* 5] Itis the court's res~nsibility to ensJj~ thatthe indictmeotdc,es Jl(Jt'Vi~lafefl'L 200.30(1), ,to wit., that it is not multiplicittrils -:w~en two or more separate co11nts cltarge · . ..,._.Ide c0adpc! (see lC<lQll v, ~11•1fftJ96 .M24i,~:7i [2m1 Dep't 1994); :fl.fJl/4v,.1"1Jllaa, ·l17AD24...· · / · tDel~tl99S)) .wand t~at.thf:.1-.fetm'entdoes notviola...~,LI00.30(1), t.o wit, tllat ttt"is~noi duplicitous .. 'aeounfimpermissibly charges more thltll. one·Crin1e: when · Genera.Uy,• wtll·crafted indictment ptoV,ides notice of tbe eharg~ 1uardl aptnst •variajace. •yqfds duplieit~u1 eh.11ges witb"p J ~·Df ·tt11·~ protfets the d~f~°'·~~.t.agamst · . dottbh Je«>.P~)'• -J~o,bd)lie •apecif1c ell~~ ~·:a, iiidicuneut? .- ~ri~al.lnf!ietment •lso serres to )rovfde "tfi4fil,fendjot With fair notice of the ICCUPtiODS DUtdt. "lainstb)m, SO that he will be able to prepare a defense." It a1tso the provides a "m,ans Df enturiJlg that th~·erbue for which the defendant is broupt to trial is in f'$et one tor whieh.. he was 'Jltdl.et'4 by th" Gran.t Jury, nth•r tlutn so•e alttrnative seized upon by th• pr«>secution" (lid v.· 8~ NY2d 440, 445). An indiet1ne11* also pro1eet$ a crl~in~1·4tfenda1t ·ttum ···f'OJecutionat.lt;pother•Jater dme; f()r:dle"li(~e.odense•. Tl,lento.nt ~·4u1· ib,dieement · .11,l.Jf .: .····· .llil'trime e1t1rledwidlsumc11Jlt:&p"1fietty to enable tbe4efen.cltnt•on~e 8.IBdlci,. ew1¥icted, f(rr·~lise tile constitutional bar of double Jeopardy against subsequejif. <pr98~011sfor the same offense" (S1n,'11:' supra).. Lidption involving deficiencies· in an indictment usually centers these l1sues: (1.) whether s~~-~R.li~g~ in .~~ alle11'tion ~ h. •etby supplying supplem•~I illlunnation .ttr·a, bilf p~;:plfniellWn ot dis#!ovary: ·.·. · . . •. . S2)~Y2if 514, '87:lt(~}·whether 1111 .. ~rr-9r:.OJ: om(,sion ean be cured by an amen.U,fit·to.the indic,tment it1clf (•.~et.CPL itlt.1Q, \\'tiieta .permits acourt to order amendment of.llll~ndietmtnt witb feiptct t~·~fcetS. citron orval-iances from proof relating to matters.of form, timei place, names ofpe,.onsan~the . 1$~ wh.ell. .-ueh an ainendment does not chan- the th:eery or theories of tile ptj)secutfon ;as fefle~ted in th1! tvldenee b1fore the G•and(J(lry ••• or otherw~e tend to, P,ftjUdlee the · ttefaldlnt •J1 tfle. R.l•ritt); illd. (3) whether QJl!fl~ .dtt,cnare waiV:fd lif ·fmttire to ohject orb1;tltf t..,,o~ ai.:1•fltyO'lca. In die ~01tl"f'1·~lew of .the Grand Jqry p1!88etntatiQD . . Jb;~ntil~ It also eonadered these potential itsuelJ. f"a~y, wben··tlle eourt considers the qu.-ion of any impairment otOr.nd tJuty •..·. p.-o!eedJlt•, it l4>0ks to CPL iio.35(5) which .Pt.Vides: "A gnuid jui:y pq:ie~ldtn1 ts . ·.. ~~"*''~·1Vltb . tli,~ nt-..ning .~tpa . . • ph ll r .. ~ivfllOJI ODf·Of,s~tiH 2J:g~a0 Wh'en .•••~;!~ · .... mttj~b'~~e :1~. . ·~•er ilflt1 <ll'~ri&Oltii•. . . . ·. . . .····.. to~91a•CJ~etlu•t·th• tb~u.lmpairetland•· i#.ff·f .fti .·. > · ... ~!1' preciae and very hl .... ··. ·.}'~· Pi.1:. tb.e·~oat~t-f tht":POl.ieie1 underlying it." ~lth•imp1irm.,nt 9fthe•GhiJl.fJu~ · ·q > • a8tD1ay re.n~:" Thll ·'~enianding · . P~~JltP, oce~ed lll~st be u~wered b-=o,a~~ court consjden th~ "a•Htb•Aaf. ~ire1~~~.P~J-·.···01,1ty ~.fterbpthm:attvs .. .Plt~;i.•tcl)t:QI' dismmaf' ' · ·· . wlldoed, can. tbe;co•.rl-~•t.tfl.e...ftn.al · ). · · ·.. ·· · · •~ [* 6] Tbe'(llte1dlant's motion to disniiss th. Htafetment is· donied. . . · ~Da.ttl.~~eeto{>er, 2010 Bntokl1n,N~w York

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.