People v Price

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

People v Price 2021 NY Slip Op 34006(U) June 3, 2021 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Ind. No. 20-00621-01 Judge: Robert A. Neary 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. FILED AND ENTERED ON ' • .3 - 20r2J WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK DECISION AND ORDER - against DEMEATRICE PRICE, Ind. No. 20-00621-01 Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------X NEARY, J. The defendant, Demeatrice Price, has been charged with the crimes of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree (B Felony), Attempted Assault in the First Degree (C Felony) and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (C Felony). The defendant has made an omnibus motion which consists of a Notice of Motion and an Affirmation and Memorandum of Law in support thereof. In response, the People have filed an Affirmation in 1r FILED JUN ~ 3 2021 TIMOTHY C. IDONI COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER [* 1] People v. Demeatrice Price Indictment No. 20-00621-01 Opposition together with a Memorandum of Law. Having read all of the submitted papers and reviewed the court file, this Court makes the following determination. A. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO CPL ARTICLE 245 The defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent provided for in Criminal Procedure Law Article 245. If any items set forth in CPL Article 245 have not been provided to the defendant pursuant to the Consent Discovery Order in the instant matter, said items are to be provided forthwith. The People recognize their continuing duty to disclose exculpatory material at the earliest possible date. [See Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83, 83 S Ct. 1194, 10 LE2d 215 and Giglio v. United States, 405 US 150, 92 S Ct. 763, 31 LE2d 104]. 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, 639 NYS2d 996, 663 NE2d 308; Matter of Brown v. Grosso, 285 AD2d 642, 729 NYS2d 492, Iv. denied 97 NY2d 605, 737 NYS2d 52, 762 NE2d 930; Matter of Brown v. Appelman, 241 AD2d 279,672 NYS2d 373; Matter of Catterson v. Jones, 229 AD2d 435,644 NYS2d 573; Matter of Catterson v. Rohl, 202 AD2d 420,608 NYS2d 696, Iv. denied 83 NY2d 755,613 NYS2d 127,241 NE2d 279]. Page 2 of 6 [* 2] People v. Demeatrice Price Indictment No. 20-00621-01 B. MOTION TO CONTROVERT THE SEARCH WARRANT AND SUPPRESS TANGIBLE EVIDENCE This branch of the defendant's motion is granted solely to the extent of conducting a Mapp hearing prior to trial to determine the propriety of any search resulting in the seizure of property and whether any evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. [See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 us·643, 82 S. Ct. 1684, 6 LE2d 1081]. With respect to any property seized pursuant to a search warrant, the motion to suppress is denied. The Court has reviewed the affidavit in support of the search warrant and finds that it did provide the signing magistrate with probable cause to believe that evidence could be located at the location described in the warrant. The Court has also reviewed the order and return and finds them to be proper in all respects. However, the Court will conduct a hearing to determine whether the items described in the return are within the scope of the warrant and are intended to be offered as evidence at trial. C. MOTION TO INSPECT AND DISMISS OR REDUCE PURSUANT TO CPL ARTICLE 210 The defendant's motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes is granted. Upon an in camera inspection of the Grand Jury minutes by Court, the motion to dismiss the indictment or reduce a charged offense in the indictment is denied. The Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceeding before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was properly instructed, and the proceedings were properly conducted. [See People v. Ca/bud, 49 NY2d 389,426 NYS2d 389,402 NE2d 1140 and People v. Valles, 62 Page 3 of 6 [* 3] People v. Demeatrice Price Indictment No. 20-00621-01 NY2d 36, 476 NYS2d 50, 464 NE2d 418]. Moreover, the evidence presented, if accepted as true, would be legally sufficient to establish every element of the offenses charged. [See CPL §210.30(2)]. In addition, the minutes reveal 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, and that it was instructed that only those grand jurors who had heard all the evidence could participate in voting on the matter. D. MOTION FOR VENTIMIGLIA AND SANDOVAL HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 240.43 Immediately prior to commencement of jury selection, the prosecutor shall, upon request of the defendant, notify the defendant of any prior criminal act which the People seek to use in the cross-examination of the defendant as well as all specific instances of the defendant's prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct of which the prosecutor has knowledge and which the prosecutor intends to use at trial for the purposes of impeaching the credibility of the defendant. Thereafter, upon the defendant's request, the trial court shall conduct a Sandoval and/or Ventimiglia hearing prior to the commencement of trial. [See People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 (1974); People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 (1981); People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264 (1901)]. E. MOTION TO EXCLUDE STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO CPL ARTICLE 710 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A HUNTLEYHEARNG This branch of the defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a Huntley hearing shall be held prior to trial to determine the admissibility and voluntariness of any Page 4 of 6 [* 4] People v. Demeatrice Price Indictment No. 20-00621-01 statements allegedly made by the defendant, which have been noticed by the People pursuant to CPL §710.30 (l)(a), CPL §710.20(3), CPL §710.60[3][b]; People v. Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012, 429 NYS2d 399,406 NE2d 1335. F. MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR ALIBI NOTICE This motion 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, 587 NYS2d 358, appeal denied 80 NY2d 974,591 NYS2d 143,605 NE2d 879; People v. Cruz, 176 AD2d 751,574 NYS2d 1006, appeal denied79 NY2d 855,580 NYS2d 727,588 NE2d 762; People v. Gill, 164 AD2d 867,599 NYS2d 376, appeal denied 76 NY2d 893,561 NYS2d 555, 562 NE2d 880; People v. Peterson, 96 AD2d 871, 578 NYS2d 358) and provides equality in the required disclosure (see People v. Peterson, 90 AD2d 871, 578 NYS2d 358; see generally Wardius v. Oregon, 412 US 470, 93 S Ct. 2208, 37 LE2d 82). G. MOTION FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS SHALL SEEM JUST AND PROPER Upon a proper showing, the Court will entertain appropriate additional motions based upon grounds of which the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously aware, or which, for other good cause, could not reasonably have been raised in this motion. [See CPL §255.20(3)]. Page 5 of 6 [* 5] . ... . , People v. Demeatrice Price Indictment No. 20-00621-01 This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court. Dated: White Plains, New York June 3, 2021 (;<~{(.~ ROBERT A. NEARY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE John O'Rourke Assistant District Attorney Westchester County Office of the District Attorney Richard J. Daronco Courthouse 111 Martin Luther King Blvd. White Plains, New York 10601 jorourke@westchesterda.net Daniel Barnick, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Office of Clare J. Degnan, Esq. Legal Aid Society 150 Grand Street, Suite 100 White Plains, New York 10601 dhamick@laswest.org Page 6 of 6 [* 6]

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.