NY appeals court overturns weapon conviction on discovery issue

A New York state appeals court has reversed a weapon conviction because the prosecution failed to properly provide the defense with discovery material.

Defendant David A. Coffey pleaded guilty in March 2023 before Broome County Court Judge Joseph Cawley, to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

Coffey was charged with second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of second-degree criminally using drug paraphernalia.

The charges were based on evidence discovered during the execution of a search warrant at Coffey’s home.

On July 15, 2021, the prosecution disclosed to the defense discovery items, including a heavily redacted copy of the search warrant application, and filed a certificate of compliance (COC) and indicated they were ready for trial.

In November 2021, Coffey’s attorney filed a motion requesting that the prosecution provide an unredacted copy of the search warrant application, which Cawley ordered the prosecution to provide.

In February 2022, Coffey’s lawyer filed a motion requesting a Darden hearing because the search warrant application revealed that it was based on information provided by a confidential informant.

The purpose of a Darden hearing is to determine whether a confidential informant exists, and whether their tip gave police probable cause for the search warrant.

In May 2022 Coffey’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the prosecution’s statement of readiness (SOR) was illusory because all automatic discovery material was not turned over.

Cawley denied the motion and found that Coffey did not sustain any prejudice from the alleged discovery violations and that the prosecution’s SOR was timely.

Subsequently, Coffey pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon in satisfaction of all charges and retained his right to appeal as part of a plea agreement.

In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to seven years in prison, plus five years of post-release supervision.

Coffey appealed to the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Third Department.

His appellate attorney argued that Cawley should have granted the motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds because the prosecutor did not exercise due diligence or make good faith efforts to meet their discovery obligations.

The prosecution must be ready for trial within six months of the start of a felony case, the Third Department noted. Criminal Procedure Law requires automatic disclosure requirements on the prosecution.

The statute in force at the time required the prosecution to disclose to the defense “all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution,” the court wrote.

When the prosecution completes initial discovery obligations, they must file a COC, which promises that “after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery,” the court wrote.

Coffey’s attorney argued that Cawley erred in denying the motion to dismiss based upon the finding that defendant did not sustain any prejudice.

“We agree,” the Third Department wrote.

“The question is not whether defendant was prejudiced by an improper (COC) … It appears that the court did not evaluate and determine whether the People’s alleged discovery violations invalidated the People’s COC and SOR,” the court wrote.

The Third Department sent the case back to County Court to determine whether the COC was proper, and whether the SOR was valid.

County Court Judge Elizabeth A. Burns held a hearing to determine this issue. She concluded that, because the prosecution willfully failed to comply with their obligations, the initial COC and SOR were illusory and Coffey’s speedy trial rights had been violated.

“Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remit the matter to County Court for the entry of an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment,” the Third Department panel wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035