| People v Lee |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 50824(U) [19 Misc 3d 1122(A)] |
| Decided on April 18, 2008 |
| Supreme Court, Kings County |
| D'Emic, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
The People of the State
of New York
against Jahmeel Lee, Defendant. |
Defendant stands indicted for Murder in the Second Degree and moves the court to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated (Criminal Procedure Law §30.20; U.S. Constitution, 6th Amendment, 14th Amendment). [*2]
On March 23, 2005, the defendant was indicted, accused of the murder of his girlfriend Claudia Hall, allegedly by stabbing and smothering her and then stuffing her body into a box and burning it. His co-defendant, Matthew Hester, apparently fled the jurisdiction and was captured in Pennsylvania in December 2006. During the period of time from arraignment until June 19, 2007, the parties were involved in motion practice, including omnibus and severance motions, as well as demanding and providing discovery, including DNA, autopsy and medical files and police records. The case was not in a trial ready posture until September 2007.
Although "there is no specific temporal duration after which a defendant automatically becomes entitled to release for denial of a speedy trial," in determining this issue a court must consider the seriousness of the charge, the incarceration of the defendant and the extent and reasons for and prejudice caused by the delay (see: People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442). In this case, the charge of murder is certainly most serious and the allegations of the prosecution particularly heinous. In addition, although the defendant has been in jail for nearly three years, not all of this time is attributable to the People and defendant has shown no prejudice to his defense by that delay (People v Robinson, 249 AD2d 333; People v Quiroz, 192 AD2d 730). The Appellate Division has denied similar applications with similarly long delays (People v Cardwell, 194 AD2d 550); People v Gwynn, 161 AD2d 1174) and this is not a case in which the delay alone is so great as to obviate the need of the defendant to show prejudice (People v Morobel, 273 AD2d 871; People v Santiago, 209 AD2d 885).
The motion is denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.
____________________________
Matthew J. D'Emic
J.S.C.