STATE APPEALS COURT REINSTATES TWO SIGNIFICANT FELONY CASES; AFFIRMS DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S POLICIES IN PROSECUTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BURGLARY CASES

Rockland County District Attorney Thomas P. Zugibe today announced that a New York appeals court has reversed and reinstated two major felony cases that Court of Claims Judge Catherine Bartlett dismissed.

In the First Case, People v. Donovan Mais, the defendant entered a home in Clarkstown and threatened and robbed the victim, who was alone. The Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled that the County Court committed error when it suppressed evidence that the victim identified the defendant soon after the crime, and also suppressed statements the defendant made to police officers who arrested and questioned the defendant after the identification.

The appellate court ruled that “Officer Manzella testified that he encountered the defendant two blocks from the location of the alleged burglary within an hour of its occurrence, and that the defendant matched the physical description given by the complainant with regard to the perpetrator's race, gender, height, build, and age. Accordingly, given the matching general description and the defendant's temporal and spacial proximity to the crime scene, a brief detention for a showup was permissible to confirm or dispel the suspicion that the defendant had committed the crime.”

The appeals court also disagreed with the lower court that the showup was not properly conducted. To the contrary, the Second Department found the Clarkstown police properly conducted the procedure in all respects, and that therefore the victim’s identification was admissible at a trial. The court also ruled that because the Clarkstown police properly arrested the defendant, his statements to them during questioning could also be used against the defendant at a trial.

Said District Attorney Zugibe, “I commend Police Officer Manzella for his excellent police work in this case, and I am satisfied that justice will be served.” In the second case, People v. Read, the defendant struck his wife and bloodied her face, violating a court order of protection. The appellate court affirmed the District Attorney’s policy to prosecute “evidence‐based” prosecutions in domestic violence cases. A prosecution is evidence‐based when the victim cannot or is unwilling to testify.

Read had a long history of abusing his wife. When the victim refused to testify, District Attorney Zugibe moved forward with the prosecution and obtained an indictment using testimony from the couple’s landlord and police. The lower court ruled that this testimony was hearsay, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. The indictment was ultimately dismissed.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court and reinstated the indictment and the prosecution, finding no prejudice to the defendant. In doing so, the court ruled that Rockland County prosecutors committed no misconduct in the case.

Zugibe said, “This case reaffirms my commitment to evidence‐based prosecutions as a tool to prosecute domestic violence cases. This important initiative puts Rockland County at the forefront of assisting some of our most vulnerable special victims, even when they themselves cannot assist in prosecuting their offenders. It is gratifying to know that the appellate courts recognize the importance of these prosecutions.”

District Attorney Zugibe continued, “I am satisfied that the appellate court took action to restore these cases so the defendants will be punished for their crimes.”