People v Madison
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Madison 2018 NY Slip Op 34031(U) November 13, 2018 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 18-0693 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 r,, --o ~'F iifi.....~ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ~ ~ -against- MJV 1 j 2018 KEVIN MADISON, DECISION & ORDER Indictment Nos.: 18-0693 1·1MOTHY C. IDONI COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------X FUFIDIO, J. Defendant, KEVIN MADISON, having been indicted on or about July 25, 2018 for one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law§ 265.02 (1 )); one count of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law§ 110/120.05 (2)) and one count of menacing in the second degree (Penal Law§ 120.14 (1)) has filed omnibus motions which consist 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 grand jury minutes and the Consent Discovery Order entered in this case, this Court disposes of this motion as follows: A. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY, DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION CPL ARTICLE 240 The parties have entered into a stipulation by way of a Consent Discovery Order consenting to the enumerated discovery in this case. Defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent 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. 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 of Catterson v Jones, 229 AD2d 435 [2d Dept 1996]; Matter a/Catterson v Rohl, 202 AD2d 420 [2d Dept 1994]). [* 2] B. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EV.IDENCE The Court grants the Defendant's motion solely 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]), C. 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 attempt to 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 him from exercising this right (see, People v Matthews, 68NY2d118 [1986]; People v Malphurs, 111 AD2d 266 [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. D. MOTION TO STRIKE PREJUDICIAL LANGUAGE The defendant moves to strike certain language from the indictment on the grounds that it is surplusage, irrelevant or prejudicial. The language concluding the indictment merely identifies the defendant's acts as public, rather than private wrongs and such language should not be stricken as prejudicial. This motion is denied (see, People v Gill, 164 AD2d 867 [2d Dept 1990]; People v Winters, 194 AD2d 703 [2d Dept 1993]; People v Garcia, 170 Misc. 2d 543 [Westchester Co. Ct. 1996]). E. 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 2 [* 3] . dismiss or reduce the indictment. The minutes reveal a quorum of the grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence, that the Assistant District Attorney properly instructed the grand jury on the law, and only permitted those grand jurors who heard all the evidence to vote the matter. The grand jury 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, I 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 of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Jessup, 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 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]). 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 grand jury 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]). Finally, the portion of the defendant's motion requesting dismissal of the indictment for facial insufficiency under CPL 200.50(7)(a) is also denied. The indictment contains a plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof with sufficient precision as to clearly apprise the defendant of the conduct which is the subject of the indictment (CPL 200.50). In reading the language of the indictment on its own and in conjunction with the bill of particulars given to the defendant in consent discovery, it is clear that the indictment charges each and every element of the crimes and further meets the requirement that the defendant be given notice of the charges against him with respect to the time, place and manner in which the People allege the crimes were committed (People v Albanese, 45 AD3d 691 [2d Dept 2007], People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589 [1978]). F. MOTION TO STRIKE ALIBI NOTICE The Defendant's motion to strike the alibi notice is denied. Contrary to the Defendant's contentions, it is well-settled that CPL 250.00 is indeed in compliance with the constitutional requirements (see People v Dawson, 185 AD2d 854 [2d Dept 1992]; People v Cruz, 176 AD2d 751 [2d Dept 1991]; People v Gill, 164 AD2d 867 [2d Dept 1990]) and provides equality in the required disclosure (People v Peterson, 96 AD2d 871 [2d Dept 1983]; see generally Wardius v Oregon, 412 US 3 [* 4] • 470 [l 973]). G. MOTION FOR FURTHER BILL OF PARTICULARS The Defendant's motion for a further bill of particulars is denied. The Defendant was given a bill of particulars as part of the Consent Discovery that was filed with the Court. The Court finds that this bill of particulars conforms to the requirement of CPL 200. 95 and that the information set forth in the bill of particulars in conjunction with the information set forth in the indictment and other court filings is sufficient to give the Defendant adequate notice of the charges against him so as to be able to formulate a defense to the allegations (People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589 [1978], CPL 200.95). H. MOTION TO STRIKE IDENTIFICATION NOTICES AND PRECLUDE STATEMENTS NOT NOTICED The motion to strike is denied. Said notices are in conformity with the statutory requirements of CPL 710.30 in that they set forth the date, manner, location of the statements made (People v Sumter, 68 AD3d 1701 [4th Dept. 2009]) and were served in the proper time frame (CPL 710.30). Finally, because the Defendant has filed a suppression motion based upon the notices that were served, he has waived his right to be heard on the sufficiency of the notices (People v Kirkland, 89 NY2d 903 [ 1996]). I. MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICED STA TEMENTS 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]). J. MOTION FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMANTS The Defendant's motion for the disclosure of any informants used in this case is denied. The disclosure of informants is only required when the question of a defendant's guilt or innocence turns on an informants testimony (People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163 [1974]). The Defendant has not made any showing that an informant was used in this case, much less the requisite showing that an informant's testimony would have any bearing on his guilt or innocence (id.). Moreover, disclosure would not be required even if an informant had been instrumental in making the introduction between the defendant and law enforcement (People v Vega, 23 AD3d 504 [2 nd Dept. 2005]). 4 [* 5] The foregoing constitutes the opinion, de · ·on and order of this Court. Dated: White Plains, New York November 2018 13 , To: HON. ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, JR. District Attorney, Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard White Plains, New York 10601 BY: KEVIN JONES, ESQ Assistant District Attorney MARIA I. WAGER, ESQ. Assistant District Attorney CLARE J. DEGNAN, ESQ. The Legal Aid Society of Westchester County 150 Grand Street, Suite 100 White Plains, New York 10601 BY: Erica L. Danielsen, Esq. 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.
