People v. Jacob

287 A.D.2d 740, 732 N.Y.S.2d 245, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10087
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 29, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 740 (People v. Jacob) 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. Jacob, 287 A.D.2d 740, 732 N.Y.S.2d 245, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered January 5, 1999, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree (eight counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial based upon the delay by the prosecution in providing Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866). The Rosario material in question consisted of a police officer’s memobook entry indicating that a witness told the police that a named individual had made certain statements to her. The memobook entry came to defense counsel’s attention during the People’s case, but after the conclusion of the questioning of the witness.

Since the Rosario material was turned over during trial and [741]*741defense counsel was afforded the opportunity to review the material and to recall the witness to the stand, it cannot be said that the prosecution delayed production until after the material was no longer of any value to the defense. When, as here, disclosure occurs during trial before both sides have rested, the material has been disclosed when it is still “useful” to the defense (People v Best, 186 AD2d 141, 142; see, People v Polanco, 174 AD2d 468). Considering the relief afforded to the defendant and the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the effect of the untimely disclosure was de minimis (see, People v Best, supra; People v Polanco, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Decker
218 A.D.3d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
People v. Sanchez
144 A.D.3d 1179 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. White
73 A.D.3d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Vaughan
48 A.D.3d 1069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Myron
28 A.D.3d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
287 A.D.2d 740, 732 N.Y.S.2d 245, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jacob-nyappdiv-2001.