People v. Mauro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mauro

236 A.D.2d 560, 654 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1381

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 560 (People v. Mauro) 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. Mauro, 236 A.D.2d 560, 654 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), rendered March 29, 1996, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the facts of this case, there was no reasonable probability [561]*561that the disclosure of a prosecution witness’s past status as a police informant would have affected the outcome of the trial (see, People v Wright, 86 NY2d 591; People v Chin, 67 NY2d 22, 33). The witness in question, unlike the complainant in People v Wright (supra), was a third party with no direct interest in the outcome of the case. The police in the instant case arrived at the scene as the defendant was being restrained by civilian witnesses. Unlike the testimony of the police in People v Wright (supra), the police in the instant case did not corroborate either the defendant’s or the People’s version of the incident. Accordingly, the fact that a prosecution witness had been a police informant in the past was not material in this case (see, People v Mauro, 167 Misc 2d 951).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, 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, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), rendered March 29, 1996, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the facts of this case, there was no reasonable probability [561]*561that the disclosure of a prosecution witness’s past status as a police informant would have affected the outcome of the trial (see, People v Wright, 86 NY2d 591; People v Chin, 67 NY2d 22, 33). The witness in question, unlike the complainant in People v Wright (supra), was a third party with no direct interest in the outcome of the case. The police in the instant case arrived at the scene as the defendant was being restrained by civilian witnesses. Unlike the testimony of the police in People v Wright (supra), the police in the instant case did not corroborate either the defendant’s or the People’s version of the incident. Accordingly, the fact that a prosecution witness had been a police informant in the past was not material in this case (see, People v Mauro, 167 Misc 2d 951).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 560, 654 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mauro-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack