The People of the State of New York, v. LaSalle D. Hargrove, Defendant. (2024)

This Decision and Order addresses Defendant's Omnibus motions filed with respect to indictment # 70275-23 and # 70048-24. Omnibus motions were previous decided with respect to indictment # 70136-23 (Rowley, J). This decision also addresses the pending motion by the People to consolidate all three indictments.

OMNIBUS MOTIONS

Defendant moves for the following relief with respect to all indictments: Inspection of Grand Jury minutes; Dismissal upon the grounds that the grand jury proceeding was defective; Dismissal for legal insufficiency; Suppression of physical evidence; Disclosure and Order pursuant to CPL § 245; Sandoval hearing; Molineux/Ventimiglia hearing; Denial of the People's motion to consolidate and leave to file subsequent motions.

The People have provided the Court with the Grand Jury transcripts, legal instructions, exhibits and attendance and voting sheet records for all indictments.

CPL 210.35(5) provides that a Grand Jury proceeding is defective when "the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result." People v. Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 454 (1990). The "exceptional remedy of dismissal is thus warranted only where a defect in the indictment created a possibility of prejudice." People v. Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 409 (1996). Grand jury proceedings enjoy a "presumption of regularity which is the challenger's burden to overcome." People v. Nash, 69 AD3d 1113, 1114 (3rd Dept. 2010). Dismissal of an indictment under CPL 210.35(5) is "limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the grand jury." Huston, at 409. The Huston Court further explained, "[c]ertainly, not every improper comment, elicitation of inadmissible testimony, impermissible question or mere mistake renders an indictment defective. Typically, the submission of some inadmissible evidence will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment. Likewise, isolated instances of misconduct will not necessarily impair the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings or lead to the possibility of prejudice." Id. "Grand Jury proceedings carry a presumption of regularity" and to overcome that presumption there must be a showing of a "gross and prejudicial irregularity in the proceedings or some other similarly compelling reason." People v. Lewis, 98 AD2d 853, 854 (3rd Dept. 1983).

A Grand Jury indictment is authorized when the evidence before it is legally sufficient to establish that such person committed a crime and competent and admissible evidence provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed the crime. CPL § 190.65(1). The standard of review upon a motion to dismiss for legal insufficiency is whether the evidence before the Grand Jury, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant a conviction by a trial jury. People v. Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97 (1984). "Legally sufficient evidence means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of the offense charged and the Defendant's commission thereof; except when corroboration required by law is absent." CPL § 70.10(1). "Reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense" exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it." NY CPL § 70.10(2). Therefore, the evidence before a Grand Jury, when viewed "in the light most favorable to the prosecution," is legally sufficient if there is competent evidence, which, if accepted as true, establishes every element of the offense charged or a lesser included offense and the Defendant's commission thereof. People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d 725,730 (1995).

A Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law. It is sufficient if the District Attorney provides the Grand Jury with enough information to enable it intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed and to determine whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material elements of the crime. People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394-95 (1980).

The People are now required to disclose Grand Jury testimony to the Defendant under the new CPL Article 245 requirements. The People complied with those requirements. Prior to the discovery changes, trial courts were essentially required to assume an advocate's role and seek out any possible legal defect in the Grand Jury presentation without any guidance from defense counsel, who obviously, could not give such guidance without the ability to review the actual testimony. Now however, defense counsel is in possession of the Grand Jury testimony well in advance of the filing of Omnibus motions and defense counsel is now empowered to point out and direct the Court's attention to any fatal legal deficiency in an indictment. The defendant has failed to do so. Nonetheless, the Court also has carefully inspected and reviewed all of the testimony, instructions and exhibits.

Ind. # 70048-24:

The Court finds upon inspection of the transcripts, attendance and voting sheets that this Grand Jury was legally constituted as contemplated by CPL § 210.35(1). The presentation of this case occurred on February 15, 2024, and was made to eighteen (18) Grand Jury members who were continuously present and 18 Grand Jurors voted upon both counts of the indictment. At least twelve (12) Grand Jurors voted in favor of each count of the indictment. Here, the grand jury was unanimous and all 18 grand jurors voted in the affirmative as to each and every count. This Grand Jury was therefore legally and properly constituted. CPL § 210.35. The legal instructions provided to the Grand Jury were proper. The People were not required to instruct the grand jury concerning corroboration. Additionally, the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally sufficient as to all counts. In addition to the Defendant's January 10, 2024 trial testimony, the grand jury was provided with ample corroboration. CPL § 60.50. The People's use of demonstrative exhibits was proper and not unfairly prejudicial to the Defendant. Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment is DENIED in all respects.

Ind. # 70275-23:

The Court finds upon inspection of the transcripts, attendance and voting sheets that this Grand Jury was legally constituted as contemplated by CPL § 210.35(1). The presentation of this case occurred on August 24, 2023, and was made to twenty (20) Grand Jury members who were continuously present and 20 Grand Jurors voted upon both counts of the indictment. At least twelve (12) Grand Jurors voted in favor of each count of the indictment. Here, the grand jury was unanimous and all 20 grand jurors voted in the affirmative as to each and every count. This Grand Jury was therefore legally constituted. CPL § 210.35. The legal instructions provided to the Grand Jury were proper. Additionally, the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally sufficient as to all counts. Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment is DENIED in all respects.

SUPPRESSION

Defendant has failed to raise any issue of fact which would warrant the holding of an evidentiary hearing. Nor has Defendant raised any colorable issue which would warrant suppression of any physical evidence (i.e., .22 ammunition and methamphetamine) obtained from the closet at 3 Robins Way. It is uncontroverted that Ms. Thursa Hargrove, Defendant's mother, was the lawful occupant of 3 Robins Way on April 28, 2023. Ms. Hargrove consented to law enforcement's entry into her home and volunteered that her son, the Defendant, kept his belongings in a closet inside the apartment. Ms. Hargrove permitted Sgt. Vann to take a look inside the closet but when drug paraphernalia was discovered in plain view she then requested that he obtain a search warrant. Sgt. Vann discontinued the search once Ms. Hargrove revoked consent and he and Inv. Walters escorted all occupants outside of the apartment in order to secure such premises while a search warrant was obtained. At approximately 4:13 pm, Inv. Walters applied for a search warrant of 3 Robins Way, Apt. 6., which search warrant was issued by Judge Jospeh R. Cassidy on April 28, 2023 at 4:15 p.m. A search warrant issued by a judge is presumed to be valid. People v. Castillo, 80 NY2d 578 (1992). The search warrant at issue here was issued upon probable cause and was consequently lawful. Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence is summarily DENIED.

People's Motion to Consolidate the Three Indictments pursuant to CPL § 200.20(2)

The Court has considered the People's moving papers, Defendant's opposition papers and oral argument of counsel on the issue of the People's motion to consolidate all three indictments. The Court agrees with the People that the three indictments are "inextricably intertwined" and proof under one indictment will be material and admissible as proof under the other indictments. CPL § 220.20(2)(b). Furthermore, since Defendant actually testified at his first jury trial (ind. # 70136-23), Judge Rowley's Nov. 2, 2023 Decision & Order initially denying consolidation no longer applies as such decision primarily relied upon Defendant's representation that he would decline to testify at the trial on Ind. # 70136-23. Additionally, all three indictments charge similar Penal Law statutory provisions. CPL § 220.20(2)(c). Clearly Ind. # 70048-24 is based upon the exact same criminal transaction as alleged Ind. # 70136-23. Furthermore, the Court will be scrupulous about providing proper limiting instructions to the trial jury. People v. Davis, 225 AD3d 62 (1st Dept. 2024). Consequently, the People's motion to consolidate all three indictments is GRANTED.

The jury trial shall commence on June 10, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Defendant and all counsel shall appear before the Court shortly for a combined Sandoval/Molineux/Ventimiglia hearing as well as to discuss any further pretrial issues. The Court's secretary will contact counsel to this court date.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court entered upon notice to both parties.

A notice of appeal, if applicable, must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of notice of entry of this decision and order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2024

Ithaca, New York

Hon. Scott A. Miller

Tompkins County Court Judge

Scott A. Miller, J.