The People of the State of New York v. Johnny M., Defendant. (2025)

According to the allegations of this case, Edwin Bishop was in his first-floor apartment at 10:15 A.M. on June 19, 2024, when he noticed water leaking from the ceiling. He walked out of his apartment to the foot of the stairs to speak to his upstairs neighbor, the defendant, Johnny M., who was 61 years old at the time, and lived directly above Mr. Bishop.

Mr. M. was already at the top of the stairs, and he began screaming at Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop tried to speak with Mr. M., who would not listen. While Mr. Bishop was trying to reason with Mr. M., Mr. M. threw a clear liquid onto Mr. Bishop, hitting his head and body.

Mr. Bishop retreated into his apartment, feeling burns on his head and body. Holes began to form in his clothing. He called his sister, who called the police. After Mr. Bishop identified him to the police, Mr. M. was arrested. Mr. Bishop's injuries — burns to his head and body - required him to spend five days in a hospital burn unit.

On July 8, 2024, Mr. M. was indicted on two counts of assault in the first degree (P.L. § 120.10(1)), one count of attempted assault in the first degree (P.L. § 110/120.10(1)) and other related charges. At his arraignment he was released to the supervision of Brooklyn Justice Initiatives.

On December 19, 2024, defendant filed a pre-pleading memorandum which explained the challenges he has faced during his life. The memorandum also contained a report by Bryan R. Stuart, Psy.D., who administered psychological examinations to defendant on October 31, 2024, and November 4, 2024.

Subsequently, on March 6, 2025, defendant submitted a Clayton motion to dismiss in the interest of justice the top three counts of the indictment, charging assault and attempted assault in the first degree, so that defendant could plead guilty to assault in the second degree and be sentenced to probation with mandated treatment. The People opposed. The defense then submitted an updated psychological evaluation dated April 1, 2025, and other materials dated June 6, 2025.

A Clayton motion, as codified in C.P.L § 210.40 (1), allows a court to dismiss an indictment in whole or part in furtherance of justice (see People v Wingard, 33 NY2d 192 [1973]; People v Samatha R., 33 Misc 3d 1235(A) [Crim Ct Kings County 2011] [Hecht, J.], aff'd, 45 Misc 3d 130(A) [App Term 2nd, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2014]). The statute enumerates the factors a court must consider in rendering its decision.

The first Clayton factor is the seriousness and the circumstances of the offense. The indictment, as relevant here, charges the defendant with the very serious charges of assault and attempted assault in the first degree - Class B and C violent felonies. The complainant, Mr. Bishop, not only was burned all over his head and body but also now suffers from permanent scarring, which has caused him emotional trauma. Clearly, then, this a serious matter.

The circumstances of the offense, viewed through the lens of a Clayton motion, however, are less clear. Mr. Bishop of course did nothing wrong. Mr. M., at the time of the incident, was undergoing multiple life-altering events. His wife of over 30 years had left him. This experience emotionally destroyed him. He became unable to pay rent on his income alone and was being evicted from the home he had lived in for decades. Mr. M. had no support while dealing with his housing issues and could not navigate his problems on his own.

Mr. M. not only suffered from anxiety but experienced paranoia and suffered an episode of what his psychologist diagnosed as a Brief Psychotic Disorder, leading to persecutory beliefs about Mr. Bishop.

This factor, then, is fairly neutral — not because the complainant's injuries are not serious, but because the circumstances indicate that defendant was experiencing an involuntary and overwhelming psychological disorder at the time of the offense, in addition to other emotional and financial distress.

The second Clayton factor is the harm caused by the offense. Mr. Bishop has suffered second degree burns from Mr. M.'s alleged actions. These burns have also caused scarring, which has in turn caused emotional trauma.

Thus, the alleged assault on Mr. Bishop by Mr. M. has evidently caused the victim great harm to both his physical and his emotional well-being. This factor, therefore, favors the People.

The third Clayton factor is evidence of guilt. Evidence of guilt here includes the testimony of the complaining witness and police, as well as medical and photographic evidence of the burns and scarring that Mr. Bishop has suffered. Mr. M. initially denied that he threw anything on the victim but did admit that he himself suffered burns on his feet from a liquid on the floor. This factor also favors the People.

Fourth, the court must consider defendant's history, character and condition. Mr. M. has no prior criminal history, and although he has faced various challenges throughout his life, he has shown himself to be a hard worker and to rise above his limitations.

Mr. M. is illiterate and struggled throughout school. He also struggles cognitively, having an IQ of 67, which places him only in the 1st percentile. He was pushed through the school system to keep up with his classmates, and his learning difficulties were never addressed by special education. Mr. M. dropped out of high school before receiving his diploma and did not pursue any further education.

After leaving school, he immediately began to find work. Throughout his life, Mr. M. has worked different types of jobs, including construction and custodial work. He struggled to keep his jobs due to his cognitive limitations, which also prohibited him from being promoted.

His ex-wife and two children describe him as a hard worker. Although Mr. M. could not help his children with their homework, he did try to help them in every other aspect of their lives, including sports. He maintains a relationship with them and with his grandson.

At the time of the incident, Mr. M. was experiencing emotionally and mentally challenging events. His marriage had recently ended, and Mr. M. was being evicted from his apartment, which presented a difficulty he could not manage, among other reasons, because of his inability to read or write. He was struggling with his mental health, including experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices, but these struggles were not disclosed or treated until after his arrest in this matter.

Mr. M. has since been diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Persecutory Type, consistent with Very Late-Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder. As noted, he was found to have experienced a Brief Psychotic Disorder. He has been prescribed medication and has been compliant with it. He has been given housing assistance by a social worker from Brooklyn Justice Initiatives and has obtained housing.

Based on this history, I contribute his uncharacteristic and erratic behavior as alleged to the stressful events that were occurring in his life and his declining mental health, rather than any bent towards criminality. This factor, then, favors defendant.

The fifth Clayton factor is whether there is any serious government misconduct. There is none. This factor is neutral.

The sixth factor focuses on the purpose and effect of imposing a sentence authorized by law. If the defendant were to be sentenced to any period of time in prison, his journey of rehabilitation would at least be interrupted if not thwarted. Mr. M. has settled into new housing and has begun a nearby counseling program. To impose a prison sentence would disrupt the progress Mr. M. has already made. The Penal Law instructs that "confinement" should be limited to those cases where it is "required in the interests of public protection" (P.L. § 1.05(6)). The purpose of imposing a sentence of confinement does not appear to be triggered here, as Mr. M. does not appear to be a risk to the public; and the effect of prison, as noted, would be to interrupt or defeat the rehabilitation that Mr. M. is undergoing. Not incidentally, the proposed sentence of probation would permit confinement if Mr. M. should warrant it in the next five years.

This factor, then, favors defendant, perhaps controllingly.

The seventh Clayton factor is the impact of dismissal on the public's confidence in the criminal justice system. To begin with, the defense does not seek an outright dismissal, but dismissal only of those charges that require imprisonment.

As stated earlier, Mr. M. has no past criminal history and was in his 60s at the time of the offense. He will be held accountable when he pleads guilty to Assault in the Second Degree, a Class D violent felony, and when a sentence of five years' probation is imposed. This should not impair the public's confidence in the criminal justice system because it will show that the criminal justice system is not inflexible and that a deserving person may be treated mercifully. Even if he were to be incarcerated (and it bears noting that the People offered Mr. M. a two-year prison sentence), Mr. M. will at some point be released back into society. The proposed disposition will allow that to occur under supervision and with needed psychiatric treatment, which is likely to have a better outcome not just for him but for society than if treatment were delayed until after a period of prison. This factor, then, also favors Mr. M.

The eighth Clayton factor is the impact on the safety and welfare of the community. Once again, Mr. M. has no prior criminal involvement. He has been a law-abiding, hardworking citizen his whole life, other than the incident alleged here. He has been following all the recommendations of his social worker and support team. He has been able to secure housing through the Jericho Project's supportive housing program and is currently applying for Section 8 housing. He is taking his psychiatric medication and connecting with a program that offers mental health counseling. This factor favors the defendant.

The final Clayton factor is the attitude of the victim. Mr. Bishop does not support the proposed disposition. He feels that it would be an injustice for Mr. M. to receive no prison time, as Mr. Bishop will likely suffer scarring for the rest of his life. This factor favors the People.

Nonetheless, the court must engage in a balancing of these factors, and the attitude of the complainant, while entirely understandable, cannot control.

For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that in the interests of justice the Clayton motion should be granted to the extent of dismissing the first three counts of the indictment upon defendant's pleading to the indictment's charge of Assault in the Second Degree with a promise of five years' probation with treatment to be monitored by the Department of Probation and a full final order of protection in favor of the complainant.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: July 23, 2025

Brooklyn, NY

JOHN T. HECHT, A.J.S.C.

John T. Hecht, J.