Judges

Attorneys and Parties

Brief Summary

Background

Defendant was charged with first-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act based on allegations that in May 2015 he forcibly compelled the victim to engage in vaginal and anal sexual conduct. He was convicted after a 2016 jury trial, but the Appellate Division reversed that conviction in 2019 because of jury selection errors and ordered a new trial. During pretrial proceedings on remittal, the People filed a March 6, 2020 COC and statement of readiness, but admitted they were not actually ready to proceed. County Court ruled that the readiness declaration was invalid and later charged 66 days to the People through April 28, 2020. Retrial was delayed by motion practice, discovery issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic. A first retrial began in August 2021, but after the jury was selected and sworn, defendant moved for a mistrial based on the People's late disclosure of materials relating to the serology expert and the victim's mental health history. Supreme Court granted the mistrial with the People's consent. The People then filed a new COC and statement of readiness on December 20, 2021, and defendant was convicted after a second retrial in January 2022.

Lower Court Decision

Supreme Court entered judgment convicting defendant of rape in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree and sentenced him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to consecutive prison terms of 25 years to life on each count. Before the second retrial, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that double jeopardy did not bar retrial and that the People's March 6, 2020 filings satisfied speedy trial requirements.

Appellate Division Reversal

The Appellate Division held that the trial evidence, including the victim's testimony, prompt disclosures, medical findings, DNA evidence, and corroborating communications, was legally sufficient and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. It also held that double jeopardy did not bar the second retrial because, even assuming jeopardy had attached, defendant requested the mistrial and the record did not show prosecutorial intent to provoke that request. However, the court found error in Supreme Court's denial of the speedy trial motion without a hearing. Under CPL 30.30 (5) (a) [if the court determines that the People are not, in fact, presently ready to proceed to trial, the statement or notice of readiness shall not be valid], the People's March 6, 2020 readiness statement was invalid because they conceded they were not actually ready. Because no hearing was conducted to determine what delay was chargeable to the People from April 28, 2020 through December 20, 2021, the record was insufficient to resolve the speedy trial issue. The court therefore withheld decision and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing and determination.

Legal Significance

The decision underscores that in a retrial context, the speedy trial clock under CPL 30.30 (7) (a) [where a retrial is ordered, the action is deemed commenced on the date the order directing a new trial becomes final] still requires an actual present readiness by the prosecution, not merely a filed statement. It also reinforces that a defendant-requested mistrial will bar reprosecution on double jeopardy grounds only where prosecutorial conduct was intentionally designed to provoke the mistrial. The case further illustrates that a certificate of compliance under CPL 245.50 [former (1)] [requires a proper certificate of compliance demonstrating compliance with discovery obligations under CPL article 245] and a statement of readiness may require factual scrutiny when discovery and readiness are disputed.