People v Wynne
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Wynne 2021 NY Slip Op 34066(U) November 17, 2021 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Indictment No. 20-0237 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. COUNTY COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- DECISION & ORDER VINSON WYNNE, Indictment No.: 20-0237 FILED Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------X FUFIDIO, J. N 1,..: . ,ft . -•-~~-'-'-•- -'ao11 . _,_OTHY C. IDONI ' ~>1Y~TY CLEqK Defendant, VINSON WYNNE, having been indicted on or ab~~~ j~fl9~:fb2i'f~;one count assault in the second degree (Penal Law§ 120.05[7]); one count of assault in the second degree (Penal Law§ 120.05[2]); promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law§ 205.20[2]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law§ 265.02[1]) 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 grand jury_ minutes this Court disposes of this motion as follows: A. MOTION TO INSPECT, DISMISS AND/OR REDUCE THE INDICTMENT Defendant move~ 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. The Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceedings before the Grand Jury. The grand jury was properly instructed (see People v Calbud, 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 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 [* 1] 2 rationally have drawn the guilty inference" (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998]). This prong of the Defendant's motion is denied. Additionally, the Court finds that the Defendant has not met his high burden of demonstrating that the integrity of the grand jury 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], People v Thompson, 22 NY3d 687 [2014]), nor does the Court find that there was any such 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. In making this determination, the Court does not find that release of such portions of the . Grand Jury minutes as have not already been disclosed pursuant to CPL Article 245 to the parties was necessary to assist the Court. B. MOTION FOR SANDOVAL/VENTIMIGLIAIMOLINEUXHEARING Granted, solely to the extent that Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux hearings, as the case may be, shall be held immediately prior to trial, as follows: I. Pursuant to CPL §245.20, the People must notify the Defendant, not less than fifteen days prior to the first scheduled date for trial, of all specific instances of Defendant's uncharged misconduct and criminal acts of which the People have knowledge and which the People intend to use at trial for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the Defendant, or as substantive proof of any material issue in the case, designating, as the case may be for each act or acts, the intended use (impeachment or substantive proof) for which the act or acts will be offered; and II. Defendant, at the ordered hearing, 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 AD2d 266 [2 nd Dept. 1985]). C. COURT'S FURTHER DISCOVERY ORDER In addition, pursuant to Administrative Order 393/19, it is: ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney responsible for the case, are required to make timely disclosure of information favorable to the defense as required by Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 [1972]; People v Geaslen, 54 NY2d 510 [1981 ]; and their progeny under the United States and New York State Constitutions and by Rule 3.8(b) of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct; and it is further ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney responsible for the case or, if the matter is not being prosecuted by the District Attorney, the prosecuting agency [* 2] ." ' 3 and its assigned representatives, have a duty to learn of such_ favorable information that is known to others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police, and are therefore expected to confer with investigative and prosecutorial personnel who acted in the case and to review all files which are directly related to the prosecution or investigation ofthis case. For purposes of this Order, favorable information can include but is not limited to: a) Information that impeaches the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness, including (i) benefits, promises, or inducements, express or tacit, made to a witness by a law enforcement official or law enforcement _victim services agency in connection with giving testimony· or cooperating in the case; (ii) a witness's prior inconsistent statement, writte!1 or oral; (iii) a witness's prior convictions and uncharged criminal conduct; (iv) information that tends to sow that a witness has a motive to lie to inculpate the defendant, or a bias against the defendant or in favor of the complainant or the prosecution; and (v) information that tends to show impairment of a witness's ability to perceive, recall, or recount relevant events, including impairment resulting from mental or physical illness or substance abuse; b) Information that tends to exculpate, reduce the degree of an offense, or scupport a potential defense to a charged offense; c) Information that tends to mitigate the degree of the defendant's culpability as to a charged offense, or to mitigate punishment; d) Information that tends to undermine evidence of the defendant's identity as a perpetrator of a charged crime, such as a non-identification of the defendant by a witness to a charged crime or an identification or other evidence implicating another person in a manner that tends to cast doubt on the defendant's guilt; and e) Information that could affect in the defendant's favor the ultimate decision on a suppression motion; and it is further ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney responsible for the case or any other agent prosecuting the case is hereby advised of his/her duty to disclose favorable information whether or not such information is recorded in tangible form and irrespective of whether the prosecutor credits the inform~tion; and it is further ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney responsible for the case or any other agent responsible for the prosecution of the case is directed that favorable information must be timely disclosed in accordance with the United States and New York State constitutional standards, as well as CPL Article 245. Disclosures are presumptively "timely" if [* 3] 4 they are completed no later than 30 days before commencement of trial in a felony case and 15 days before commencement of trial in a misdemeanor case. Records of a judgment of conviction or a pending criminal action ordinarily are discoverable within the time frame provided in CPL Article 245. Disclosures that pertain to a suppression hearing are presumptively "timely" if they are made no later than 15 days before the scheduled hearing date; and it is further ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney responsible for the case or any other agent responsible for the prosecution of the case is hereby reminded and informed that his/her obligation to disclose is a continuing one; and it further ORDERED, notwithstanding the foregoing, that a prosecutor may apply for a protective order, which may be issued for good cause, and CPL Article 245 shall be deemed to apply, with_ respect to disclosures required under this Order. Moreover,·the prosecutor may request a ruling from the court on the need for disclosure. Only willful and deliberate conduct will constitute a violation of this Order or be eligible to result in personal sanctions against the prosecutor; and it is further ORDERED, that counsel for the defendant is required to: a) confer with the defendant about his/her case and is required to keep the defendant informed about all significant developments in this case; and .b) timely communicate any and all plea offers to the defendant and to provide him/her with reasonable advice about the advantages and disadvantages of any such plea offer including the potential sentencing ranges that apply in the case; c) where applicable, insure the defendant receives competent advise concerning immigration consequences as required under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356 [2010]; d) perform a reasonable investigation of the facts and the law pertinent to the case (including, as applicable, visiting the scene, interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing pertinent materials, consulting experts, inspecting exhibits, reviewing all discovery materials obtained from the prosecution, researching legal issues, etc.) or, as appropriate, making a reasonable professional judgment not to investigate a particular matter; e) comply with the requirements of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct regarding conflicts of interest, and when appropriate, timely notify the court of a possible conflict so that an inquiry may be undertaken or a ruling made; f) possess or acquire a reasonable knowledge and familiarity with criminal procedural and evidentiary law to ensure constitutionally effective representation in the case; and g) in accordance with statute, provide notices as specified in CPL sections 250.10, 250.20 · and 250.30 (e.g., a demand, intent to introduce the evidence, etc.) 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 [* 4] 5 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. The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court. Dated: - . White Plains, New York November 2021 J1 , Honorable Georg Westchester Coun To: HON. MIRIAM E. ROCAH District Attorney, Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard White Plains, New York 10601 BY: ADRIAN MURPHY, 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: MARY PAT LONG, 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.
