People v. Theodore

Hearing Decision

*1 A hearing took place on October 12, 2017 in accordance with a decision dated July 24, 2017 in order to determine facts which establish whether a permissible authorization took place to allow the Special Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of the defendant. The plaintiff initially moved to dismiss the charges of violation PL 260.24 [Endangering the Welfare of an Incompetent or Disabled Person] (Six Counts), PL 110/120(1) [Attempted Assault in the Third Degree] (Three Counts), PL 120.15 [Menacing in the Third Degree][ (Three Counts) and PL 240.26 [Harassment in the Second Degree] (Three Counts). In the initial moving papers, the defendant raised issues charging the statute authorizing prosecution by the Special Prosecutor for the Protection of People with Special Needs (Executive Law §§550 et.seq.) was unconstitutional because the District Attorney failed to “retain final authority and ultimate responsibility” for the prosecution of the charges and that the Special Prosecutor lacked the authority to independently prosecute the defendant.The District Attorney established during the hearing by way of background that beginning in January 2015, an arrangement to allow the Special Prosecutor to prosecute a case involving crimes committed against a person with special needs because the Special Prosecutor originated and conducted the investigation. Ultimately, that case proceeded to disposition and sentence. Following the initial case in November 2015 a procedure memorialized in an e-mail from an executive assistant district attorney that going forward, the Nassau County District Attorney would handle any complaint involving a crime against a person with special needs which the Justice Center received by the hot-line complaint system.However, the incident of which the defendant is accused occurred in August 2015. The Nassau County District Attorney received no notification about the incident until February 2016 when the Justice Center contacted a deputy bureau chief in District Court and sought help to proceed with the prosecution of the defendant. The deputy bureau chief provided assistance by reviewing the accusatory instrument, forwarding