Judges

Attorneys and Parties

Brief Summary

Background

Defendant and two codefendants were indicted in October 2022 for sexual offenses against minor family members. As relevant here, defendant was charged with predatory sexual assault against a child under Penal Law former § 130.96 [crime committed when a person 18 or older commits first-degree course of sexual conduct against a child under 13] and course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree under Penal Law § 130.75 (1) (former [a]) [crime involving two or more acts of sexual conduct over at least three months with a child under 11, including at least one act of intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct, or aggravated sexual contact]. The People filed a certificate of compliance (COC) and statement of readiness on December 2, 2022, then filed a supplemental COC on August 31, 2023. Defendant later moved to dismiss on statutory speedy-trial grounds, arguing the belated disclosure made the original COC invalid. At trial, the victim testified that defendant abused her every few months while she was between five and nine years old and living in the same household. She explained that she delayed disclosure because defendant threatened to kill her. The People also presented testimony from relatives about defendant's prior sexual abuse of them, expert testimony from a psychotherapist about delayed and inconsistent disclosure by child sexual abuse victims, and testimony from a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigator that the victim displayed sexualized behavior. A pediatrician testified that his 2015 examination did not exclude abuse, though some findings could be viewed as inconsistent with it.

Lower Court Decision

County Court allowed the case to proceed to a joint jury trial with one codefendant after another codefendant pleaded guilty and testified for the People. The jury convicted defendant of predatory sexual assault against a child, and County Court sentenced him to 20 years to life. Although defendant had moved before trial to invalidate the People's December 2, 2022 COC and dismiss the indictment under CPL 30.30, County Court never ruled on that motion.

Appellate Division Reversal

The Appellate Division rejected defendant's weight-of-the-evidence challenge and held that, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, the conviction was supported by the weight of the evidence. The court found the legal-sufficiency challenge unpreserved because defendant's trial motion to dismiss was not specific. On the speedy-trial issue, however, the court held that appellate review was impossible because County Court made no findings about the People's discovery compliance, due diligence, or the validity of the original COC. The appellate court therefore withheld decision and remitted the matter to County Court to determine whether the original COC was valid and, if not, whether the People exceeded the time permitted to announce readiness for trial under CPL 30.30.

Legal Significance

The decision reinforces that a valid certificate of compliance is a prerequisite to a valid readiness statement under CPL 30.30, and that the key inquiry is whether the prosecution exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to locate discoverable material, as explained in People v Bay. It also underscores that when a trial court fails to make findings on a COC and speedy-trial motion, an appellate court may not treat that omission as a denial and must remit for express findings.