People v. Hinds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hinds

261 A.D.2d 415, 690 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4460

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 415 (People v. Hinds) 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. Hinds, 261 A.D.2d 415, 690 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Minardo, J.), rendered March 25, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the People did not violate the requirements set forth under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83). Even if, as the defendant contends, a follow-up police report was exculpatory material, the People turned over the report to the defense prior to jury selection (see, People v White, 178 AD2d 674).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Minardo, J.), rendered March 25, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the People did not violate the requirements set forth under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83). Even if, as the defendant contends, a follow-up police report was exculpatory material, the People turned over the report to the defense prior to jury selection (see, People v White, 178 AD2d 674).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 415, 690 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hinds-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack