Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Charges dismissed over speedy trial issue

By: Bennett Loudon//February 22, 2023

Charges dismissed over speedy trial issue

By: Bennett Loudon//February 22, 2023//

Listen to this article

A state Supreme Court justice in the Bronx has dismissed a gun case because the prosecution failed to declare readiness for trial within the proper timeframe.

In May 2020, defendant Travis Moore and Kyeone Stone were charged in relation to a fatal shooting. October 2, 2020, both men were indicted on charges of intentional murder and felony murder, as well as for first-degree robbery and two counts of criminal possession of firearm.

Moore’s defense attorney filed a motion to dismiss the indictment arguing that the evidence presented to the grand jury was insufficient and it failed to show that Moore shared Stone’s intent to commit a murder.

On May 4, 2021, Justice Steven Hornstein dismissed the intentional and felony murder charges as well as the robbery charges against Moore.

Hornstein found that Moore was waiting in a cab when Stone left that cab and allegedly went to the victim’s apartment, stole the victim’s property, and shot the victim, before returning to Moore in the waiting cab.

Hornstein did not dismiss the second-degree criminal possession of a weapon charges because, when Moore was arrested in the cab, he had a loaded gun.

So, the only charges remaining against Moore were two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, while Stone was still charged with two counts of murder and a robbery.

On Dec. 23, Moore’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case because his right to a speedy trial was violated.

On Jan. 9, the prosecutor sent an email to Justice Ralph Fabrizio asking for “an extension of a week or so” to file a response to the motion.

Fabrizio granted that request and extended the time for the prosecution to file a response until Jan. 18. But the prosecution never filed a response.

On Feb. 3, Fabrizio granted the defense motion, because the prosecution failed to state their readiness for trial within the statutory time.

The prosecution never re-presented the dismissed charges to a second grand jury. They also never filed a certificate of discovery compliance for the charges Moore still faced.

“There is no fact dispute about the status of discovery in this matter; the People have not filed a (certificate of compliance) and have not stated ready on this indictment,” Fabrizio wrote.

“Here, the main cause of delay is in bringing this whole case to trial … is due to the People’s lack of discovery compliance. That failure is profound in this matter,” Fabrizio wrote.

“In this case, the discovery delay period since the arraignment is now more than (26) months. Even with the exclusion of time for pre-trial motion practice, the People have exceeded their statutory period to provide disclosure by more than a year and a half,” Fabrizio wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035

Case Digests

See all Case Digests

Law News

See All Law News


How Is My Site?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...