People v Laguerre

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

People v Laguerre 2018 NY Slip Op 33619(U) March 19, 2018 County Court, Rockland County Docket Number: 2017-316 Judge: David S. Zuckerman 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 ROCKLAND FILED SL -------------------------------------x MAR 22 2018 ROCKLANI> COUNTy THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Cl..ERK.•s OFFICE DECISION & ORDER -all~lllllllJl~llm~1mi11 Doc ID: '044956300007 Type: cou Kind: PEOPLE Ind. No.: 2017-316 PETER LAGUERRE, Recorded: 03/22/2018 at 12:14:38 PM Fee Amt: $0.00 Page 1 of 7 Transaction: DECISION & ORDER Rockland County, NY Paul Piperato County Clerk ;~~;;;~~-;~--- C0-2017-001521 Defendant stands accused under Indictment No. 2017-316 of one count of Murder in the Second Degree (Penal Law §125.25[1]). As set forth the Indictment, it is alleged that, on or about July 21, 2017, the defendant, in Rockland County, with intent to cause the death of another, caused that person's death. By Notice of Motion dated February 16, 2018, with accompanying Affirmation, Defendant moves for omnibus relief. and Affirmation in In response, the People have submitted Opposition dated February 22, 2017, and Defendant has submitted a Reply thereto on March 5, 2018. The motion is disposed of as follows: I. II, VIII, IX. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION Defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent provided for in Criminal Procedure Law Article 240. set forth in CPL Article 240 have not been If any items provided to the Defendant pursuant to the consent discovery order in the instant matter, said items are to be provided forthwith. The People are reminded of their continuing duty to disclose - [* 2] ,. ~ exculpatory material (see Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963] and Giglio v United States, possible date. 405 U.S. 150 (1971]) at the earliest If the People are or become aware of any material which is arguably 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. To any further extent, the application is denied as seeking material or information beyond the scope of discovery (see People v Colavito, 87 NY2d 423 (1996]; Matter of Catterson v. Jones, 229 AD2d 435 [2"ct Dept 1996]; Matter of Catterson v Rohl, 202 AD2d 420 [2"ct Dept 1994]; Matter of Brown v Appelman, 241 AD2d 279 [2"ct Dept 1998]). III, IV. MOTION TO INSPECT THE GRAND JURY MINUTES AND TO DISMISS AND/OR REDUCE THE INDICTMENT Defendant moves pursuant to CPL §§210.20(1) (b) and (c) to dismiss the indictment, or counts thereof, on the grounds that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient and that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the meaning of CPL §210.35. On consent of the People, the Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceedings before the Grand Jury. Pursuant to CPL §190.65(1), an indictment must be supported by legally sufficient evidence which establishes that the defendant committed the offenses charged. Legally sufficient evidence is competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish each and every element of the offense charged and the defendant's [* 3] ~----· ------------------------ commission thereof (CPL §70.10(1]}; People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103 [1986]}. "In the context of a grand jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, proof beyond a Bello, 92 NY2d 523 (1998); People v Ackies, 79 AD3d 1050 (2nd Dept 2010). In rendering a determination, reasonable doubt." . People v not "[t]he reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of each element of the charged crimes and whether the grand jury could rationally have drawn the inference of guilt." Bello, supra, quotipg People v Boampong, AD3d 794 57 (2nd Dept 2008-- internal quotations omitted). A review of the minutes reveals that the evidence presented, if accepted as true, would be legally sufficient to establish every element of the offenses charged (see CPL §210.30[2]). Defendant's motion to dismiss or reduce for Accordingly, lack of sufficient evidence is denied. With respect to Defendant's claim that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the meaning of CPL §210. 35, a review of the minutes supports a finding that a quorum of the grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the district attorney instructed the Grand Jury on the law, that the grand jurors who voted to indict heard all the "essential and critical evidence" (see People v Collier, 72 NY2d 298 [1988]; People v Julius, [2003]), 300 AD2d 167 [1st Dept 2002], lv den 99 NY2d 655 and that the Grand Jury was properly instructed (see [* 4] llJJ!!!,illli!X!ll!"l!!l"•"""'"""""-"----------j~-------------" 49 NY2d 389 [1980] and People v. Valles, People v Calbud, 62 NY2d 36 [1984]). 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. y_,_ MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE/FOR A MAPP HEARING Defendant moves to suppress testimony regarding clothing seized from him. The People, in their Affirmation in Opposition, state was that there no impropriety in the police search and seizure of clothing which occurred in this matter. While not explicitly denominated in his Notice of Motion as a motion to controvert physical a search evidence warrant, recovered Defendant pursuant to moves its to suppress execution. the With respect to the physi;cal evidence recovered pursuant to execution of that search warrant, the results of a search conducted pursuant to a facially sufficient search warrant are suppression hearing. People v Arnau, event, reviewed the Affidavit the Court has not 58 NY2d 27 subject (1982). to a In any in support of the search warrant and finds it provided the issuing magistrate with ample probable cause to support issuance thereof. Further, this court reviewed the search order and finds it to be proper in all respects. To the extent Defendant herein seeks to challenge whether the items recovered pursuant to the search order are beyond the scope of said warrant, it :ls directed that, immediately prior to trial, a hearing shall be conducted limited to this allegation. - [* 5] This court notes that according to the Voluntary Disclosure Form and People's Affirmations filed in this case, the People have provided defense counsel with access to the search warrant and supporting affidavit. VI. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT EVIDENCE/FOR A HUNTLEY HEARING Defendant moves to suppress testimony regarding statements taken from him, in particular alleging that the statements were the product of an unlawful arrest. The People, in their Affirmation in Opposition, was state that there no impropriety in the police questioning which occurred in this matter, and that the arrest of the Defendant was lawful. The motion for suppression is thus granted, to the extent that a pre-trial Huntley hearing is ordered. VII. MOTION TO PRECLUDE UNNOTICED STATEMENTS Defendant moves to preclude unnoticed statements. in their Affirmation in Opposition, state that The People, there unnoticed statements which they seek to introduce. were no Consequently, the motion insofar as it seeks preclusion is denied. ;!L. MOTION FOR SANDOVAL/VENTIMIGLIA/MOLINEUX 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 [* 6] 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 [2"ct Dept. 1985]). 2. the Ventimiglia/Molineux - Upon the consent of the People, in event that the People determine that they will seek to introduce evidence at trial of any prior bad acts of the Defendant, including acts sought in their case in chief, they shall so notify the Court and defense counsel and a Ventimiglia/Molineux hearing (see People v Ventimiglia, 168 NY 264 [1901]) 52 NY2d.350 [198l];Peop1e v Molineux, shall be held immediately prior to trial to determine whether or not any evidence of uncharged crimes may be used by the People, including 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/Molineux hearing to be consolidated and held with the other hearings herein. XI. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO FILE FUTURE MOTIONS Denied. Any future motions must set forth reasons as to why said motion was not brought in conformity with CPL §255.20. The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. [* 7] • Dated: New City, New York March 19, 2018 • RMAN, J.C.C. HON. THOMAS P. ZUGIBE District Attorney, Rockland County One South Main Street, Suite 500 New City, New York 10956 BY: Patrick Fischer, Esq. Senior Assistant District Attorney MICHAEL E. BONGIORNO, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant Biggs 455 Route 304 Bardonia, NY 10954 ENTERED MAR 22 Z018 Q~-.,._Q~~ County Clerk RocK!Snd

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.