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

Defendant, on May 11, 2024, filed a request for ex parte consideration of his continued opposition to the consolidation of the three indictments. Defendant's affidavit, sworn to on May 11, 2024, is hereby Ordered to remain under seal, and may only be reviewed by an Appellate Court, unless unsealed by subsequent order of this Court.

The Court did consider Defendant's initial affidavit sworn to on April 15, 2024, but such affidavit did not contain any convincing assertion as to why the three indictments should not be consolidated. As this Court previously explained, Judge Rowley's Nov. 2, 2023 Decision & Order initially denying consolidation no longer applies as such decision primarily relied upon Defendant's representation that "Defendant would decline to testify in the first [No.70136-23] but may necessarily be forced to testify in the second [#70275-23]." As we now know, the genuineness of Defendant's representations to Judge Rowley have been called into question based upon the fact that the Defendant did not refrain from testifying at the trial on Ind. # 70136- 23, but rather did in fact testify.

Now, Defendant's April 15, 2024 affidavit merely states that he has a "genuine need to refrain from testifying" at the trial on Ind. #70275-23, although he adds, "this doesn't mean that there is zero percent chance that I will not testify at [the] trial" on the April 28, 2023 charges. In short, Defendant merely makes the opposite representations to this Court that he made to Judge Rowley. Defendant's more detailed May 11, 2024 ex parte affidavit does not alter the Court's view. Without revealing the contents of Defendant's May 11, 2024 ex parte affidavit, such affidavit actually presents a more convincing case as to why the Defendant actually may need to testify in order to rebut the People's evidence that the Defendant was in constructive possession of methamphetamine and .22 caliber ammunition, found in Thursa Hargrove's closet on April 28, 2023. In short, The Defendant has not made the requisite "convincing showing" that he has a "genuine need to refrain from testifying" at the trial on the April 28, 2023 allegations. People v. Burrows, 280 AD2d 132, 135 (4th Dept. 2001).

It is appropriate at this juncture to comment on a few other points relevant to the issue of consolidation. On January 10, 2024, the Defendant, as was his right, testified in his own defense at the trial concerning the January 6, 2023 allegations that he threw illegal drugs out of his moving vehicle as he was evading the police who were attempting to effectuate an arrest based upon an outstanding arrest warrant. Prior to taking the stand, although Defendant had previously represented to Judge Rowley that he needed to refrain from testifying at this trial, the Defendant did NOT seek a ruling on whether this unexpected January 10, 2024 trial testimony would be admissible at any subsequent trial on the April 28, 2023 charges. This Court finds that Defendant's January 10, 2024 trial testimony is not only admissible on the People's case in chief at the retrial of Ind. #70136-2 (and obviously at the trial on Ind. #70048-24), but now most certainly such testimony is admissible on the People's case in chief at any trial on Ind. #70275-23. Defendant, during his testimony, remarkably confessed to possessing a KelTec CP 33, which Defendant added "it's a .22. caliber, holds 33 rounds." Defendant's Jan. 10th 2024 trial testimony at p.36. In order to obtain a conviction for Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree, the People are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on January 6, 2023 the Defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed a "large capacity ammunition feeding device." Penal Law § 265.02(8). The Court must highlight that the People are not required to prove that the Defendant possessed an operable firearm, nor are the People required to prove that the Defendant's KelTec was even loaded at all. The Court further draws attention to Penal Law § 265.00(23), which defines "large capacity ammunition feeding device" as "mean[ing] a magazine *** or similar device that [ ] has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition [emphasis added]." The .22 caliber ammunition discovered by law enforcement on April 28, 2023 in Thursa Hargrove's closet could certainly serve as corroborating evidence to Defendant's trial confession that he knowingly and unlawfully possessed a high capacity magazine. In short, Defendant's very own trial testimony has confirmed the People's long-held position that the indictments are "inextricably intertwined."

As a supplement to the Court's previous decision denying suppression, this Court now expressly rules, what it had implicitly ruled in its earlier ruling that all physical evidence seized from Defendant's vehicle on April 28, 2023 as well as all physical evidence seized from Thursa Hargrove's home on April 28, 2023 shall be admissible at Defendant's trial. Any physical evidence seized from Defendant's vehicle was properly seized as a result of Judge Cassidy's lawfully issued April 28, 2023 search warrant.

Additionally, and it bears repeating, there was no material issue of fact raised in Defendant's suppression motion papers concerning law enforcement's seizure of methamphetamine, .22 caliber bullets and drug related contraband from Ms. Thursa Hargrove's closet at 3 Robins Way. Defendant of his own volition, on April 28, 2023, left his mother's residence, entered her 2013 Dodge Avenger and drove off. At such time, law enforcement possessed an arrest warrant for Defendant, lawfully issued by Judge Cassidy on April 20, 2023 for Ind. #70136-23. At approximately 10:23 a.m. on April 28, 2023, Defendant was arrested in the parking lot of Cayuga Lake National Bank. The vehicle was not searched until a search warrant was obtained. Defendant, in his April 14, 2024 affidavit, asserted that he "did not consent to any search of my person or my property and my mom's car." Noteworthy, Defendant does not mention 3 Robins Way, his mother's home. In any case, Defendant was not at Ms. Thursa Hargrove's home when Sgt. Vann interacted with her. There is no dispute that Sgt. Vann was invited inside the home by Ms. Hargrove and further that she provided Sgt. Vann consent to search and only revoked such consent after he observed what appeared to be narcotics and drug paraphernalia in plain view inside the closet where Ms. Hargrove stated that Defendant kept some items. As soon as Ms. Hargrove revoked her consent, Sgt Vann discontinued the search and law enforcement applied to Judge Cassidy for a search warrant for the residence, which search warrant was promptly issued on April 23, 2023, resulting in the seizure of various contraband from the closet. Ms. Thursa Hargrove had the authority to consent to Sgt. Vann's search of her residence at 3 Robins Way, as well as the closet in her home where Defendant kept his items, regardless of any objections Defendant may have voiced to law enforcement while being arrested at a different location (the Cayuga Lake National Bank parking lot). See, People v. Cosme, 48 NY2d 286, 290 (1979) ("[T]he police may lawfully conduct a warrantless search when they have obtained the voluntary consent of a party who possesses the requisite degree of authority and control over the premises or personal property in question.") See also, Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (co-occupant of residence interacting with law enforcement at such residence has authority to consent to search irrespective of the fact that defendant may be objecting while at a different location).

Consequently, the Court's prior orders denying dismissal, denying suppression, and granting consolidation are adhered to.

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 14, 2024

Ithaca, New York

Hon. Scott A. Miller

Tompkins County Court Judge

Scott A. Miller, J.