People v Gilbert
Annotate this CaseDecided on August 10, 2015
Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County
The People of the State of New York,
against
Chester Gilbert, Defendant.
2014BX066180
The People — Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx County by Danielle M. Drasser, Assistant District Attorney
Defendant — The Legal Aid Society by Sakeena Beaulieu
Armando Montano, J.
By prosecutor's information no.: 0078-2015, defendant is charged with Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 120.00[1]) and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (PL § 265.01[2]).
Defendant moves for an order 1) pursuant to CPL § 210.30, granting inspection of the grand jury minutes for the purpose of determining whether the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the charges contained in the prosecutor's information; 2) suppressing any and all statements allegedly obtained from defendant, or in the alternative, granting a hearing to determine the admissibility of such statements; 3) suppressing any and all physical evidence seized from defendant, or in the alternative, granting a hearing to determine the admissibility of such evidence; 4) preclude the People from introducing unnoticed identification evidence; 5) directing the People to furnish defendant with a Bill of Particulars; 6) directing the People to furnish defendant with all items of discovery demanded pursuant to CPL § 240.20; 7) precluding the People from introducing at trial any evidence of defendant's prior convictions or bad acts; and 8) granting defendant the right to make additional pretrial motions and the right to amend and/or supplement this motion if made necessary or appropriate by the People's future disclosure.
Motion to Inspect and Dismiss or Reduce
/i>
Defendant requests that the grand jury minutes be inspected in order to determine whether the proceedings before the grand jury were conducted in a proper manner. Upon inspection by the court, defendant requests dismissal of the indictment or reduction of the [*2]charges therein if either insufficiency or impropriety is found.
The People oppose defendant's request for the release of the grand jury minutes. The People note that defendant has offered no reasons as to why the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings should be abrogated. Nonetheless, pursuant to CPL § 210.30, the People submit a copy of the grand jury proceedings to the court for review. The People maintain that a review of the minutes will demonstrate the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury and the propriety of the proceedings.
"A motion to inspect grand jury minutes is a motion requesting an examination by the court and the defendant of the stenographic minutes of a grand jury proceeding for the purpose of determining whether the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to support the charges of a charge contained in such indictment." CPL § 210.30(2).
Unless good cause exists to deny the motion to inspect the grand jury minutes, the court must grant the motion then proceed to examine the minutes and to determine the motion to dismiss or reduce the indictment. If the court, after examining the minutes, finds that release of the minutes, or certain portions thereof, to the parties is necessary to assist the court in making its determination on the motion, it may release the minutes or such portions thereof to the parties .Prior to such release the district attorney shall be given an opportunity to present argument to the court that the release of the minutes, or any portion thereof, would not be in the public interest. CPL § 210.30(3).
Defendant's motion for the court to inspect the grand jury minutes is granted. Defendant's motion for the release of the grand jury minutes is denied. Due to the presumption of confidentiality which attaches to the record of grand jury proceedings, "a party seeking disclosure of grand jury minutes must establish a compelling and particularized need for them. Only then must the court balance various factors to assess, in its discretion, whether disclosure is appropriate." People v. Robinson, 98 NB.Y.2d 755, 756 (2002); see also, People v. Fetcho, 91 NY2d 765 (1998); Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436 (1983); CPL § 190.25. Defendant has failed to meet his initial burden of demonstrating a "compelling and particularized need" for the release of the grand jury minutes.
"In determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury, [t]he reviewing court must consider whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence—would warrant conviction.'" People v. Mayo, 59 AD3d 250, 253 (1st Dept. 2009) quoting People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d 725, 730 (1995). Based upon its examination of the grand jury minutes, this court finds the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to support the counts in the prosecutor's information. People v. Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 115 (1986). Therefore, defendant's motion to dismiss the prosecutor's information on the grounds that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient is denied.
With respect to the propriety of the grand jury proceedings, this court finds that the grand jury proceedings were not defective. "CPL 210.35(5) provides that a Grand Jury proceeding is defective when the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result.'" People v. Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 409 (1996) quoting People v. Di Falco, 44 NY2d 482, 487 (1978). The "exceptional remedy" of dismissal "under CPL 210.35(5) should thus limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the Grand Jury." Huston, 88 NY2d at 409. An [*3]inspection of the minutes of the grand jury proceedings reveal that a quorum was present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the assistant district attorney instructed the grand jury on the law, and the instructions were not defective within the meaning of CPL § 210.35(5).
Therefore, defendant's motion to dismiss the prosecutor's information for alleged defects in the grand jury proceedings is denied.
Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence
Defendant moves to suppress the physical evidence obtained by the police, to wit: one knife. Defendant argues that the physical evidence must be suppressed on the grounds that such property was seized unlawfully in violation of his constitutional rights. In the alternative, defendant requests a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to determine the issues raised. Defendant asserts that a random search was conducted by the officers without a justifiable reason. Defendant denies engaging in any conduct indicative of criminal behavior which would justify police intrusion.
In opposition, the People argue that defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence should be denied as moot since no physical evidence was recovered from defendant.
In light of the fact that there was no physical evidence recovered from defendant, defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence, or in the alternative, granting a Mapp/Dunaway hearing is denied.
Motion to Suppress Statements
Defendant moves to suppress the statements he allegedly made because such evidence was obtained illegally on the following grounds: 1) the statements were involuntary within the meaning of CPL § 60.45; 2) he was not advised of his Miranda rights prior to being subjected to custodial interrogation; and 3) the statement are the tainted fruit of an unlawful arrest. In the alternative, defendant requests a Huntley/Dunaway hearing.
The People oppose this branch of defendant's motion in its entirety. With respect to the Dunaway portion of defendant's motion, the People argue that said request should be denied as defendant has failed to set forth sworn allegations of fact which would give rise to a hearing.
A motion to suppress evidence "must state the ground or grounds of the motion and must contain sworn allegations of fact." CPL § 710.60(1). A motion to suppress must be summarily granted where the defendant alleges a legal ground warranting suppression and the People concede the truth of the factual allegations. CPL § 710.60(2)(a). A court may summarily deny a motion to suppress if the defendant fails to allege a proper legal basis for suppression or if the "sworn allegations of fact do not as a matter of law support the ground alleged." CPL § 710.60(3)(b). "[T]he sufficiency of [the] defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) [the] defendant's access to information." People v. Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 426 (1993). However, even if the defendant's factual allegations are deficient, summarily denying a motion to suppress is disfavored.
This court finds that defendant's moving papers are "minimally sufficient" to warrant a hearing on the issue of suppression. See, People v. Harris, 160 AD2d 515, 515 (1st Dept. 1990). "When the validity of a warrantless arrest is challenged, the presumption of probable cause disappears and the People bear the burden of coming forward with evidence showing that it was supported by probable cause." People v. Chaney, 253 AD2d 562, 564 (3d Dept. 1998). Therefore, defendant's request for a Dunaway hearing is granted.
In a motion to suppress a statement, all that is required to warrant a Huntley hearing is [*4]the mere claim that the defendant's statement was involuntary. People v. Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012 (1980); People v. Bingham, 144 AD2d 682 (2d Dept. 1988); Matter of Brian E., 206 AD2d 665 (3d Dept. 1994). Therefore, defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing is granted.
Motion to Preclude Identification Evidence
Defendant's motion to preclude the introduction of unnoticed identification evidence is denied, with leave granted for defendant to renew this branch of the motion upon learning that the People intend to introduce any such evidence at trial.
Discovery
The People are reminded of their continuing obligation to supply all Brady material. The People have already responded to defendant's request for a bill of particulars and demand to produce. Therefore, defendant's motion to preclude the offering of evidence for failure to respond to his request for a bill of particulars and demand to produce is denied as moot.
Sandoval/Molineaux/Ventimiglia
Defendant requests and the People consent to disclosure of defendant's prior charged and uncharged criminal, vicious, or immoral conduct which the People intend to use at trial pursuant to People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 (1974), ), People v. Molineaux, 168 NY 265 (1901), and People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 (1981).
Defendant further moves for an order precluding the People from introducing at trial evidence of his prior criminal convictions, any underlying bad acts, and all prior uncharged criminal, vicious, or immoral conduct. The People request that this issue be deferred for resolution by the trial judge until just prior to jury selection when arguments from both sides may be heard.
Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion for a Sandoval/Molineaux/Ventimiglia hearing is respectfully referred to the trial judge.
Future Motions
Defendant's reservation of right to file further motions is unauthorized pursuant to CPL § 255.20(3). Any future motions shall be summarily denied absent a showing of good cause.
Accordingly, defendant's motion to inspect the grand jury minutes and dismiss the prosecutor's information is denied. Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence, or in the alternative, granting a Mapp/Dunaway hearing is denied as moot. Defendant's motion for a Huntley/Dunaway hearing is granted. The People are reminded of their continuing obligation to supply all Brady material. Defendant's motion to preclude the offering of evidence for failure to respond to his request for a bill of particulars and demand to produce is denied as moot. Defendant's motion to preclude evidence of unnoticed identification evidence is denied, with leave granted for defendant to renew this branch of the motion upon learning that the People intend to introduce any such evidence at trial. Defendant's motion for a Sandoval/Molineaux/Ventimiglia hearing is respectfully referred to the trial judge. Defendant's request to file additional motions is denied subject to rights under CPL § 255.20(3) to move for further leave upon good cause shown.
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
Dated:August 10, 2015
Bronx, New York
_______________________________
Hon. Armando Montano
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.
