People v Wooten
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Wooten 2018 NY Slip Op 33601(U) July 3, 2018 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 17-0799 Judge: George E. Fufidio 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] COUNTY COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- DECISION.,& ORDER ~tment No.: 17-0799 f\LEU VINCENTWOOTEN, Defendant. ~~~-I-~;~:~-.--------------------------------------------------- X ~ JUL _5 ·z:""> Tl MOTH'< Cr i~O~ I cou~~E-t.fiHESTER couNTY or- Defendant, VINCENT WOOTEN, having been ma1cted on or about February 16, 2018 on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law§ 265.02(1)); two counts of criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law§ 265.0l(b)(l)); one count of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds (Penal Law§ 265.0l(a)); two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law§ 220.03); one count of aggravated unlicenced operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 51 l(l)(a)); one count ofloitering (Penal Law§ 240.35(5) and one count of trespass (Penal Law§ 140.05) has filed an omnibus motion which consists of a Notice of Motion, an Affirmation in Support and a Memorandum of Law. In response, the People have filed an Affirmation in Opposition together with a Memorandum of Law. Upon consideration of these papers, the stenographic transcript of the grandjury minutes and the Consent Discovery Order entered in this case, this Court disposes of this motion as follows: A. MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICED STATEMENTS This branch of the Defendant's motion seeking to suppress statements on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally obtained is granted to the extent that a Huntley hearing shall be held prior to trial to determine whether any statements allegedly made by the Defendant, which have been noticed by the People pursuant to CPL 710.30 (l)(a) were involuntarily made by the Defendant within the meaning of CPL 60.45 (see CPL 710.20 (3); CPL 710.60 [3][b]; People v Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012 [1980]), obtained in violation of Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and/or obtained in violation of the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (see Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]). B. MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY This motion is granted to the limited extent of that a hearing shall be held prior to trial to determine whether the identifying witnesses had a sufficient prior familiarity with the Defendant as to render them impervious to police suggestion (People v Rodriguez, 79 NY 2d 445 [1992]). In the event the court finds that there was not a sufficient prior familiarity with the Defendant on the part of the witness, the court will then consider whether or not the noticed identifications were unduly suggestive (United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]). Specifically, the court shall determine whether the identifications were so improperly suggestive as to taint any in-court identification. In the event the identifications are found to be unduly suggestive, the court shall then go on to consider whether the People have proven by clear and convincing evidence that an independent source exists for such witness' [* 2] proposed in-court identification. C. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE Upon the Court's review of the four comers of the search warrant affidavit and order, the court finds that the warrant was adequately supported by probable cause to believe that evidence at the location could tend to show that the offense was committed and that the defendant was the one who committed it (see People v Keves, 291 AD2d 571 [2d Dept 2002]; see generally People v Badilla, 130 AD3d 744 [2d Dept 2015]; People v Elysee, 49 AD3d 33 [2d Dept 2007]). This branch of the defendant's motion is granted to the extent that Mapp and Dunaway hearings are · directed to be held prior to trial to determine the propriety of any search resulting in the seizure of property (see, Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 [1961]) and whether any evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (see, Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]). D. MOTION FOR SANDOVAL AND VENTIMIGLIA HEARINGS Defendant has moved for a pre-trial hearing to permit the trial court to determine the extent, if at all, to which the People may inquire into the defendant's prior criminal convictions, prior uncharged criminal act, and vicious or immoral conduct (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371[1974]). The People have consented to, and it is now ordered that immediately prior to trial the court will conduct a Sandoval hearing. At the hearing, the People are required to notify the defendant of all specific instances of his criminal, prior uncharged criminal acts and vicious or immoral conduct of which they have knowledge and which they intend to use in an attemptto impeach the defendant's credibility if he elects to testify at trial (CPL 240.43). The defendant shall then bear the burden of identifying any instances of his prior misconduct that he submits the People should not be permitted to use to impeach his credibility. The defendant shall be required to identify the basis of his belief that each event or incident may be unduly prejudicial to him should he decide testify as a witness on his own behalf and thereby prevent hirri from exercising this right (see, People v Matthews, 68 NY2d 118 [1986]; People v Malphurs, 111AD2d266 [2d Dept 1985]). Defendant's application for a Ventimiglia hearing is denied as premature, because the People have not indicated an intention to use any evidence of prior bad act or uncharged crimes of the defendant in its case in chief (see, People v Molineaux, 168 NY2d 264 [1901]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 · [1981]). The People have stated that if they do intend to use any Molineaux evidence that they will inform the defense and the court of their intention and at that point the defendant may renew this aspect of his motion. E. MOTION for DISCOVERY. DISCLOSURE and INSPECTION CPL ARTICLE 240 The parties have entered into a stipulation by way of a Conse11t Discovery Order consenting to the enumerated discovery in this case. Defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent 2 [* 3] provided for in Criminal Procedure Law Article 240. If there any further items discoverable pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Article 240 which have not been provided to defendant pursuant to the Consent Discovery Order, they are to be provided forthwith. In particular, the Defendant has requested the results of any drug analysis which is listed in the consent discovery as not applicable, despite drug charges appearing on the indictment, as well as the search warrant affidavit and return and any picture used in a pictorial identification procedure. With respect to the remaining items requested, there does not appear to have been a corporeal identification procedure and the gun that was recovered appears to have been addressed by the People in consent discovery in item# 28, "Physical evidence to be introduced at the trial.. .. " If that is not the case, then the People are to provide the Defendant the opportunity to view the gun that is the subject of this indictment. As to the defendant's demand for exculpatory material, the People have acknowledged their continuing duty to disclose exculpatory material at the earliest possible date upon its discovery (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 [1972]). In the event that the People are, or become, aware of any material which is arguably exculpatory and they are not willing to consent to its disclosure to the defendant, they are directed to immediately disclose such material to the court to permit an in camera inspection and determination as to whether the material must be disclosed to the defendant. Except to the extent that the defendant's application has been specifically granted herein, it is otherwise denied as seeking material or information beyond the scope of discovery (see, People v Colavito, 87 NY2d 423 [1996]; Matter of Brown v Grosso, 285 AD2d 642 [2d Dept 2001]; Matter of Brown v Appelman, 241 AD2d 279 [2d Dept 1998]; Matter a/Catterson v Jones, 229 AD2d 435 [2d Dept 1996]; Matter a/Catterson v Rohl, 202 AD2d 420 [2d Dept 1994]). F. MOTION TO INSPECT. DISMISS AND/OR REDUCE The court grants the defendant's motion to the limited extent that the court has conducted, with the consent of the People, an in camera inspection of the stenographic transcription of the grand jury proceedings. Upon such review, the court finds no basis upon which to grant defendant's application to dismiss or reduce the indictment. The grandjury was properly instructed (see People v Ca/bud, 49 NY2d 389 [1980]; People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36 [1984]; People v Burch, 108 AD3d 679 [2d Dept 2013]). The evidence presented, if accepted as true, is legally sufficient to establish every element of each offense charged (CPL 210.30[2]). "Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate 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 Mills, 1 NY3d 269, 274-275 [2002]). Legally sufficient evidence means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof (CPL 70.10[1]; see People v Flowers, 138 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2d Dept 2016]). "In the context ofa Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (People vJessup, 90 AD3d 782, 783 [2d Dept 2011]). "The reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes, and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference. That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is 3 [* 4] ·irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference" (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998]); Additionally, the Court finds that the Defendant has not met his high burden of demonstrating that the integrity of the gtandjury proceedings was impaired by any error, let alone one that would render the proceedings defective and prejudicial to the Defendant (People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449 [1990], Peopl<! v Thompson, 22 NY3d 687 [2014]), nor does the Court find that there was any sucp error. Among other things the minutes reveal a quorum of the grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence, that the Assistant District Attorney presented the evidence fairly and properly instructed the grand jury on the law and only permitted those grand jurors who heard all the evidence to vote the matter. Accordingly, this prong of the defendant's motion ts also denied. Based upon the in camera review, since this court does not find release of the grand jury minutes or any portion thereof necessary to assist it in making any determinations and as the defendant has not set forth a compelling or particularized need for the production of the grandjury minutes, defendant's . application for a copy of the grand jury minutes is denied (People v Jang, 17 AD3d 693 [2d Dept 2005]; CPL 190.25[4][a]). The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court. Dated: White Plains, New York July3 ,2018 To: HON. ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, JR. District Attorney, Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard White Plains, New York 10601 BY: SPENCER LITTMAN, ESQ Assistant District Attorney MARIA I. WAGER, ESQ. Assistant District Attorney RICHARD F. SWEENEY, ESQ. 30 South Broadway Suite 810-811, #17 Yonkers, New York 10701 4
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.
