People v. Deas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Deas

208 A.D.2d 467, 617 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10531

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 467 (People v. Deas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Deas, 208 A.D.2d 467, 617 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered October 29, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of IVi to 15 years and 5 to 10 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s adverse inference charge was an appropriate sanction for the People’s failure to turn over the notes of a duty captain who interviewed the complainant at the hospital. Defendant waived his appellate argument that the sanction [468]*468was inadequate because the People failed to carry their burden of establishing that the unproduced material did not exist or was not subject to disclosure by acquiescing in the court’s proposed sanction, namely, an adverse inference charge. Defendant’s argument that, in any event, the court’s adverse inference charge was "deficient” is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered October 29, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of IVi to 15 years and 5 to 10 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s adverse inference charge was an appropriate sanction for the People’s failure to turn over the notes of a duty captain who interviewed the complainant at the hospital. Defendant waived his appellate argument that the sanction [468]*468was inadequate because the People failed to carry their burden of establishing that the unproduced material did not exist or was not subject to disclosure by acquiescing in the court’s proposed sanction, namely, an adverse inference charge. Defendant’s argument that, in any event, the court’s adverse inference charge was "deficient” is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 467, 617 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-deas-nyappdiv-1994.