7/30/2019 Kerry Kennedy decision

1/5

JUSTICECOURTOFTHE TOWNOFNORTFICASTLECOLINTYOFWESTCHESTER: TATEOFNEW YORKPeopleof the Stateof New York, DE,CISION

AND ORDER-against-

Kerry Kennedy. Defendant.--XLazansky,J.

Defendants chargedwith a singlecount of Driving Whi le Ability Impairedby Drugspursuanto Vehicle and Traffic Law Section1192 4).Defendanthas moved o dismiss heinformation n the nterestofjustice. The Peopleoppose he motion to dismiss. n reaching hedecision ollowing, this Court has evier,ved ll papersandproceedings eretoforehadherein,and considered, eparately nd ogether,eachofthe applicable tatutory actors.Findinss of Fact

On the morningof July 13,2012,a motoristcameupondefendant's arblocking heroadwayon Route22 rn Armonk, and called he'police or assistance fter observingher o bedisoriented ndnon-responsive.

Defendant ntended o go to the gym and hen o a meeting. Before eavingherhome nthe town of North Castle,sheallegedly ook Ambien insteadof her daily Synthroidandgot n thecat.' Shedrovenorth on ChestnutRidgeRoad and entereclnterstate684 Southbouncl t Exit 4,driving on the grass. Thendefendant it atractor ra11er2.heexited I-684 atExit 3. Defendantwasseendriving erratically,cutting off otherceLrs,nddriving on the shoulder,despitedisablingdamage o her car.Even after gettingout of her car to inspect he damage, he e-entered er car,put it into reverse, nd drove t backwardsnto the guard ail.North Castlepolice officers nvestigated t the scenebut hadno further nvolvement nthe case'New York Statepolice respondecl,ontinued ire nvestigationat their Somersbarracks,andultimatelyarrested lefendantor the singleviolationof Vehicle andTraffic Law Section1192(4)'A blood es tat hehospital aterconfirmed heexistence f Zolpidem,commonlyknor,vn sAmbien, in her blood.

rvere ilecl. Defenclant fl-ered diff'erent xpJanation t her pressconf'erencefterherarraignmentbLrtbefbre he lab results' Neither clefenclantor the truck clriverstoppecl.The truck clriver atercame orrvardand rvaschargeclvith a trafficioiationof Leaving theSceneof a PropertyDarnageAccicjent.The tr.uck river was lrecj r.omhis ob thereafier.

7/30/2019 Kerry Kennedy decision

2/5

AnalysisTheDistrict Attorneyholds he nterests f thePeople n a public trust' andhasexclusive

discretion o file charges ndprosecute ases.Courtshaveno powel or discretion n this regard'court interferencewith the perfbrmanceof a District Attorney's office shouldbe sanctionedonlyunder he mostunusualandcompellingcircumstances. ee, .g.,Peoplev Keith R, 95AD3d 65Itst Dept2012J, v to app clen 9 NY3ct963;Matter of MacPhersonv. People,208 Misc' 423[QueensCtySotpCt 1955J

Courtsdo havediscretionary ower to dismissa case,evenwithout a reasonbasedn law,if "dismissal s required n furtherance fjustice." CPL 170.30(l)k). But this po\,vero disrnissis neitlrelabsoh,rteor uncontrolled,ancl s sub.iecto appellate eview.Peoplev Wingard,33NY2tl lg2, 196 ]973J; Peoplev Schellenhuch,67 AD3d 712 2d Dept 2008J. In exercisinghispower,a court s required o examineand consider, ollectivelyand ndividually, to the extentrelevant, he following ten statutory actors,and hen set orth thereasons or its decisionon therecord: (a) the seriousnessnd circurnstances f the offense; b) the extentof harm caused ythe offbnse;c) the evidence l'guilt; (d ) the history.character ndconditionol'thede1'endant;{)thepurpose ndef-fuct l'imposinga sentence pon he del'endanl;g) the mpactof a dismissalon thesalbtyor welhre of the community; h) the mpactof a dismissal pon he conlhdence1'thepublic n the crimirral.justiceystem; i) theattitude f the complainatrt r victirnwith respectto the rnotion; and(i) any other elevant act inc;icatinghat a udgmentof conviction wouldserveno r-rsefirllrrpose.CPL 170.40(1).

The Couft's dismissalpower s to be sparinglyexercised nd nvolvesa sensitivebalancingof thedefbndant'sndividual interests gainst he competing nterests f thepr"rblic,and.People Litman, 99 AD2d 573 2d Dept 1988J.Theremr-rstxistcompelling uctorsclearlydemonstratinghatprosecution f tlie del'endant ould be unjr-rst. eoplev Rickert, 58l,{Y2d122,at 127 ]983J; Peoplev Clayton,4l AD2c{201 [2d Dept 1973];Peoplev l{elley, 141AD2d 764 2d Detrtt9BBJ;Peoplev Ortiz, 152 4D2cl755 2d Dept l9c99J;Peoplev Debiusi, ] 60AD2d 952[2c{Depr ]994J.

Thus, he extraordinary emedyof dismissal s reserved or the "rare ard unusualcase"which "criesout for findamental ustice beyond he confinesof conventional onsiderations"(Peoplev Curcio, 22 \v{i.;c3cl 07 [King,s'C'tyCrint 0 2A)BJ Peoplev Premier House, Inc., 174Mi,vc2cl 63 King,s'Cty Crim Ct 1997J;People v Insignares, 109AD2d 22 , 234, v den 65lVY2d928fl985J, quotingPeoplev Belge,41 NY2d60, 62-63 [1976]; Peoplev Harmon, I8lAD2d 31 lst Dept.l992J;Peoplev I{oward, 151AD2d 253,256, v den 74NY2dSl I [1959]),ancionly whena rniscarriage f.jilsticewor-rld esr-r,ltiom strict adherenceo the letterof the aw.Peoplev Vurckio, I(t2 luli,sc2cl876, Sl NYC Crim Ct ]99il, citingPeoplev Belkota, j0 AD2(tllB, 120 4th Depr ]975J; PeoplevAnclrew, 78AD2cl653 [2clDept ]980J, People v Esbnnks,I l4 Misc 2d 1097 'rl1sp 'ernt, clDept 1952/. Wliile not recluirecl,t is usefpl o unclergo niternizeddisc,t-tssionf the statutory actors o be considered. eoplev Rickert, s,Ltprcr.

7/30/2019 Kerry Kennedy decision

3/5

CPLl70,a0Q@)Seritlt'snesscmrlCircrtmstuncesoftheoJJense'L 170.40(1)ft Hurm C, theOtteDriving while intoxic'ateds a seriousoffense v'fl- $ 1192et a/ ' wereenacted ecause

i'toxicated cirivers re ar more ikely to become nvolved n acciclentshan hosewho havenotbeendrinkingortakingdrrrgs.see,e.g. ,LlgBl,chg]0, . \TJ. ' i .heoverwhelnr ingpubl icpol icyito protect hoseu'ho makeuse of roads iom the needless eath,njury, andpropertydamageresultingfrom ntoxicated riving. (L l9Bl, ch9l0, 5\ " I' 'TL 1192)'

Defendant rgueshat heextentof harm s negligible ecause o onewas njr,rreduringthis ofl'ense. ut drivingr,vhilentoxicateds r-rot victimless rime; t is an off-ensegainstsocietyas a whole. People v Litmem, supru; Peoplev l{elley, sutr}ra l 765;People v. Quill, I IIutisc2d 12 [Kings Cty 1958/. I'he operationof aurtomobilesn city streetss sr-rfficientlyhazardous t best. Persons peratingautomobiles hor,rlde n fr-rllpossession f their facLrlties.An intoxicatedpelsonwho operates n automobileon a highway s a menaiceo thepublic.Heexhibitsno regard br the sai-ety f his fbllow man." Peoplev Ritsky, 224 AD 425, 126[2d Deprre2BJ

Defendant r-rt wide swathof danger nd isk to othervehicles n the oaddurir-rgushhour hatday allegedlydrivin-q n thegrass, n themedian, ittinga tractor railer,weavingacrossanesoltl-re nterstate. he ncidenlaffucted umerous therdrivers,oneof whornsr,rff-eredhe ossof his employrnent.Theseseriouscircumstanccs renot what the egislaturecontemplatedo compel disrnissalunclerhis subsection. or are hey oornparableo casesnrvhicha cout't'sdiscretion o dismisswas r-rphelcl. ee,e.g.,People v Rickert, sLLprac{eJbnclcmrswfut ctiled topctychilclsupport vvithseeming egif mutereasons);People v Wingurd, sttpra(teenschargedwith disorderly conducl, prosecutor and witnes.ses.ftriledto altpear.fbr tt ial),'Peoplev Duvis, 55 l,lisc2d 65(t NY C4,5;1 g6U (marihttanaacquired-htttnot used-by tttdentout of cw'iosiQ); People v Cumphell, 48 lttisc 2d 798[Kings'Cty ]96(il @hargeo/'cthductionagainstde./endantisntissedvvhereomplainant,h4)o rtysbeJore er lSth hirth]ay, ytent octnotherslateo marry wilhorLlporenlal pennis',;ion);Peoplev Quill, :iLtl.)rctindiclmentc{i5m1s^sed.forcrint incrl l ibelecun'vecomplnit t t tn{,slaleclhesrf/bret{noharmancl"thept$lic,sztffbr[edJiniury".flont hecrime). t couldbe argueci,nstead, eebelow, hat he compelling niustice fviolationol'an mportant ublicpolicy would occlrr f thiscasewereclisrnissed.

Here' witnesses escribed lefenclant'smpairecl riving at the time of the ncident. heflled lab reportwas positivc fbr a cont'olled substance. primcr fctcie casehas ee' establ.ishecl.In hermotionpapers, lefenclantigorouslyasserts er nnocence, rguingher clef-e'sehat heingestionof the mpairingdrug ,vas cciclental. hehas aisecl therdefenses t other imes.CPL 170'40makes o mention 1'possibleelbnses.his s sobecausedefendanthasno burdenof prclofat ali! I'he Peoplemustproveeveryelementof the crime chargedbeyonda

7/30/2019 Kerry Kennedy decision

4/5

reasonableoubt n order o secLlre convictionof that crime.De1'endantseednot, ar-rd fien donot,saya word n theirdefense.The statute learlycontenlplatesha tevidenceo be consideredon a motion o clismissr- rhe nterest l'jr-rstices oniy thatevidence hich supportshe charge'is available o the people.andwhich they are ikely to introclr-roet trial. See, 'g'.PeoplevFigtteroct, 64Misc2ctBt4 fKings Cty Crint Ct 1995J. inceCPL 170.40 loes ot contemplatedet-enses,either heir existence or a r,veak rosecution ase an be a compeliing actor whichrequiresa courl to circumventplosecutorialdiscretion o granta clisrnissain the nterestofjustice.Peoplev Prunty, s'upra,at l68-169, cited n PeoplevPremier House,Inc., stpra, at169; Peoplev Litmun, sLtpt'ct.

In sum,an nterest fjusticedismissal houldnot be usedasa substitutebr a trial.Peoplev Pesola,37 A4isc3cl 69 []V]'C Crint Ct 2012J. Whetherher ntoxicationwas voluntari,.or shesuff'ered seizure,or is not criminally liable are ail issuesof fact more applopriatelyresolvedat a trial. See,e.g.,People v Vurckio, supra,citecl n Premier House,Inc.,suprct. Thecredibility of witnesses nd strengthof the evidenceonthe whole camot be properiy gaugedonmotionpapers.CPL 170.40(I)(d)History, Clturucterund Condition f'DeJbnduntCPL170.40(ll(flPurpose ndEffectof ImposingSentence ponDefendont

It is safe o say hat Kerry Kennedy s nct a typical criminal defendant.Shehasachieveda greatdeal and s dedicated o goodworks. Shehasworked irelessly o make a positivedifference n the world. She deserves raise or her accomplishments.n her motion papers,defendant rgues hat continuedprosecution nd/orconvictionwor-rld eriouslyhrul herreputationand will permanently nhibit her ability to continue n this regard.The Cor-uldisagrees.Othergifted, powerful and wealthypoliticiansand celebrities oo numerous omentionhave aceda wide varietyof criminal charges nd havegoneon to do their obs or servethe public in many important \,vays.

The case aw is very clear hat a defendant's exernplary"backgrounddoesnot immunizeher from the normal processes f the criminal Iaw.SeePeople v Varela,106 AD2d 339 [1" DeptI984J. A defendant's ocial,economicor educational tatus s not a defense o enforcement fcriminal aws. Those n positionsof powermust not be mmune rom prosecution.PeoplevO'Neil l ,85Misc2d130,132p,{YSupCt19751.Adefendant's )pliorcleanrecord,2)careerasa police officer, 3) statusas a motherand 4) upstandingmemberof the communitywith anunblemishedecord,are all insufficient o ustify dismissalof a valid charge n the nterestofjustice.Peoplev Andrew, 78AD2d 683 2d Dept ] 9B0J Peoplev Belkota, 50 AD2d I I B;People v. Figueroo, supra; People v, Litman, supra. Seeals'o,People v Singh, 36 Misc3d 901[Kings C4t Crim Ct 20]2J; People v McLuren, 36 Misc3d 148[Sup Ct QueensCry 20]2J.

Defeusecounseiwill have he opportunity o argue or a benefit o his client basedon herprior stellar ecord,after conviction, f that occurs,at the time of sentence.t is the dutyof asentencing ourt o considersuch nformation.Peoplev Suitte,90 AD2d S0 2d Dept 1980J.

7/30/2019 Kerry Kennedy decision

5/5

CPL 170.40(1)(9)nzpactoJDismissalon the Srfetyor ll/e(hre oJ'theCommmzity;CPL 170.44(l(h) Impuct of Dismissulon Puhlic Confitlencen CriminalJusticeSystem;CPL 170.44(1)(i)Complainant r Victim'sAttitude regnrding lte motion;CPL 170.40(ll(i)Anv other elevuntttct hnta conviclionwouldserve o usefulpurpose

The balanceof the relevantCPL I 70.40 actorsare alsoof great mportance, etdefendant's otionmisses he mark.Del'ense ounsel ostulateshat a dismissal ereinwor-rldengender ublic conlidence n the systern's airness, nd a feeling that.iusticehadbeendone.lnstead.preventinga "firll airing of theproof availableo both sides"at a tr ial, People v.Figuerou, supro, woulclsureiy unclerminehe ccrnmunity's rust n the.iusticesystem.The Courtis sworn o uphold he aw ob.jectivelyn every case,witholrt fbar or favor, avoidingaliappearancesf irnpropriety.Dismissaiat this stagemi-ehtappearasbias or f'avoritisrn f theCourt. eading o the ntolelable alseconclusior.rmong he pr-rblichat there are wo justicesystems: ne or the rich andpowelful, andone or everyoneelse. ncome,social status,accomplishments r celebrity are nmaterial to this Cor-ifi'sdecisions.The cornrnunityexpectsand deserveso see hat the lar.v ppliesequally o all defendants.

Perhapsmole irnpoftantiy,err nterestof justicedismissalwould convey o the publictheegregioLrsalse rnpression hat intoxicatecl riving is a trilling matter.sub.iecto dismissalat thewhim of the judioiary. Peoplev.McLoren, sLtpra. ntoxicatecl riving fatalitieshaveclecleasedin recentyearsas a resultof stricterenforcemeni ndstrengthening f drunk driving laws.Dismissalwould diminish the detenenteffectof tl'reseaws, hus emboldening hose nclined odrive in an ntoxicatedmanner.The esulting ncreasedncidenceof intoxicateddriving wouldhave a negative mpacton public safetyand welfare. d. Regaldlessof the merits of the case,there s no doubt hat according he to tlie statuteandprecedent ase aw, ustice requireseitheraIrial or theconsent f botli parties o apleabargaindisposition.

'fhe interests f the People, he commr:nityancl lf he clef-enclantust coinoicien orclerto warrantdismissalof criminal charges. eople v. Debiasi, 160AD2d 952 [2d Dept I990J.Inthis case, hose nterests o not converge.Upon consideration f this caseagainst he tenstatutory riteria of CPL 170.40( ), he Court finds that defendant as ailed to clearlydemonstrate compelling eason o dismiss his case n the nterest fjustice.Thns, t i s hereby

ORDERED, hat del'endant's otion1oclisrnisshe char:gen the nterest fjustice sdenied n ali rcspeots.Coitnselandclef-enclantreorclcredo appearn Courl on May 21.2013 torlurtherproceedings onsistentwith this Orclcl.

Armonk,New YorkMay 21,2013

ElyseLa2anskyTown Justice f North Castle