People v Johnson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

People v Johnson 2017 NY Slip Op 33194(U) June 20, 2017 County Court, Dutchess County Docket Number: 24/2017 Judge: Peter M. Forman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] CRIMINAL Court/County:________________________________________ Type:___________________________________ Case Title:__________________________________________ 00024-2017 Docket Number:_____________________________________ EXPERT(s): _________________________________________ April Llave Doc Reviewer:___________________________ Peter M. Forman JUDGE: ____________________________________________ File date:_______________________ Mark the Correct Category White Collar Crime Drugs DUI/DWI Immigration RICO Murder Burglary Robbery Illegal Possession of Guns/Firearms Terrorism Electronic Espionage Miscellaneous X Mark the Correct Category Crime Type Doc Label (LBL) or Category Doc Description Motion Order _MO LBLX Trial Order _TO LBLX Trial Pleading _TP LBLX Trial Motion, Memorandum, and Affidavit Trial Deposition and Discovery _TM LBLX Trial Filing _TF Police Report _AR Arrest Warrant _AW Search Warrant _SW Wiretap Warrant _WW Trial Transcript _TT Verdict, Agreement and Settlement (actuals) Jury Instruction (actual) _VS Expert Depositions _ED Expert Transcripts _ET Partial Expert Testimony _EP Expert Report and Affidavit _ER Paper Only _PO Exhibits (Note-worthy) _EX Judgments of Conviction _JC Curriculum Vitae _CV _TD _JI LBL2 CRIM100 CRIM120 CRIM140 CRIM160 CRIM180 CRIM200 CRIM220 CRIM240 CRIM260 CRIM270 CRIM280 CRIM300 [* 2] STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF DUTCHESS COUNTY COURT THE PEOPLE OF THE ST ATE OF NEW YORK, DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Ind. No. 24/2017 - against - William V. Grady, District Attorney by: Margaret M. Walker, Esq. KASHIF JOHNSON, Kara Gerry, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Defendant ...., . = ....... HON. PETER M. FORMAN, County Court Judge The following papers were read and considered in deciding this motion: PAPERS NUMBERE@c -c:>.. 1 2 NOTICE OF OMNIBUS MOTION .............................. . AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT.................................. . EXHIBITS ..................................................................... . 3-4 NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION .................................... . ANSWERING AFFIRMATION ................................. . 5 6 S\ { Defendant stands accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Dutchess of the following crimes: Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (per se ), a Class D Felony, in violation of§ 1192(2) and § 1193( 1)( c)(ii) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; and Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (common law), a Class D Felony, in violation of §1192(3) and §l 193(1)(c)(ii) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. By Omnibus Motion, Defendant seeks various forms of relief which this Court will address in order. This Court will also address the People's cross-motion for reciprocal discovery. 1 [* 3] GRAND JURY MINUTES AND INDICTMENT With respect to Defendant's motion for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and dismissal or reduction of the indictment, the same is granted to the extent that the Court has reviewed such minutes for the purpose of determining Defendant' s motion to dismiss or reduce the charges to a lesser included offense upon the grounds that said inspection would allegedly show that the evidence upon which the indictment was based was legally incompetent, insufficiently corroborated or otherwise inadmissible. CPL §190.65(1). Having examined the minutes of the testimony before the Grand Jury of Dutchess County, this Court determines that the indictment is based upon evidence which is legally sufficient to establish that Defendant committed the offenses as set forth therein, and that competent and admissible evidence before the Grand Jury provides reasonable cause to believe that Defendant committed those offenses [CPL §190.65; People v. Swamp, 84 N.Y.2d 725(1994); People v. Haney, 30 N.Y.2d 328 (1972)]. Further, this Court determines that the evidence is legally sufficient to support every element of the charges contained in said indictment and any lesser included offenses, and that legally sufficient evidence was presented to establish that Defendant committed such offenses. See People v. Jensen, 86 N.Y.2d 248 (1995); People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103 (1986); People v. Maver, 1 A.D.3d 461 (2"d Dept. 2003). This Court has also reviewed the instructions given by the Assistant District Attorney to the Grand Jury and finds that the same satisfy the applicable standards [People v. Ca/bud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389(1980)]. Further, this Court finds nothing that would render this indictment defective. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss or reduce the indictment is denied. 2 [* 4] Defendant's motion to be provided with a copy of the Grand Jury minutes is denied in the exercise of discretion. Defendant's motion to be provided with a copy of the legal instructions given to the Grand Jury is also denied in the exercise of discretion. DISCOVERY Defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent that the District Attorney is directed to make available to Defendant's attorney any and all property and information required to be disclosed pursuant to CPL 240.20. Defendant also requests disclosure of all documents, notes or reports in the possession of the People, including statements of witnesses, police officers or informants. This request essentially seeks discovery of Rosario material. The People are under no obligation to disclose this material at this stage of the proceedings. Defendant's motion seeking production of this material is denied, subject to the People's compliance with their obligations under CPL §240.43 and §240.45, and with their continuing obligations under Bradv v. Maryland and its progeny. The People's motion for reciprocal discovery is granted to the extent that Defendant is directed to make available to the People any and all property and information required to be disclosed pursuant to CPL 240.30. BRADY AND IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL Defendant's motion to be provided with all Bradv and impeaching material is granted to the extent that the People shall provide Defendant with any evidence in their possession or control which may tend to exculpate Defendant or which is otherwise favorable to him [Bradv v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)]. 3 [* 5] SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENTS Defendant's motion to suppress the statements identified in the CPL §710.30 notice served by the People is granted to the extent that a Huntley hearing will be held prior to trial. [CPL§710.60[4]; People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72 (1965)]. Defendant's motion to suppress the alleged statements on the grounds that he was arrested unlawfully and without probable cause is denied. Defendant has failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant such a hearing. [CPL §710.60(4). People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415 (1993); People v. Wright, 54 A.D.3d 695, 863 N.Y.S.2d 253 (2 Dept. 2008)]. SANDOVAL The Court grants Defendant's motion for a Sandoval hearing to the extent that a hearing is ordered which will be held immediately prior to trial to determine which, if any, bad acts or convictions may be used as impeachment in the event that the Defendant elects to testify at trial. See People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 (1974). The District Attorney has provided Defendant's attorney with a true copy of Defendant's Division of Criminal Justice Services Summary Case History. The Court orders the District Attorney to disclose to Defendant's attorney any and all acts upon which it intends to impeach Defendant, including without limitation all prior instances of Defendant's alleged prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct that the People intend to use at trial for the purposes of impeaching Defendant's credibility. [CPL §240.43]. VENTIMIGLIA Defendant has requested that the People supply Defendant with all specific instances of prior uncharged conduct which the People will seek to offer against Defendant at trial upon its 4 [* 6] direct case. The People have not made any application to offer evidence of any specific instances of uncharged crimes which they intend to offer in their direct case pursuant to People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350 (1981). If the People intend to make an application pursuant to People v Ventimiglia, they should do so prior to the Sandoval hearing ordered herein. PRE-TRIAL BEARING TRANSCRIPTS Defendant's request that any pre-trial hearings be conducted at least seven (7) days prior to trial to allow sufficient time for the production of hearing transcripts is denied. All pre-trial hearings will be scheduled at the convenience of the Court and the parties herein. Transcripts will be provided to the defense prior to the commencement of trial testimony. LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS Defendant's request for leave to file additional motions is granted to the extent that Defendant may file any motion that Defendant deems fit within the forty-five (45) day time limit. Subsequent to the forty-five (45) day time limit, Defendant may make further motions only upon a showing of good cause. The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court. Dated: Poughkeepsie, NY June 20, 2017 - PETER M. FORMAN COUNTYCOURTJUDGE 5

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.