People v. Minson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Minson

3 A.D.3d 540, 770 N.Y.S.2d 632, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 20, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[541]*541Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered February 16, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, since the record demonstrates that the witness in question was not knowledgeable about any material issue (see People v Welch, 307 AD2d 776, 777-778 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 625 [2003]).

The “Unusual Occurrence Report” and the “Homicide Analysis Report” did not constitute Brady material (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]) since the information contained in the reports was not exculpatory. In any event, assuming that the reports constituted Brady material, the defendant was provided with them at a time when he had a meaningful opportunity to use them (see People v Cortijo, 70 NY2d 868, 870 [1987]; People v Barnes, 200 AD2d 751, 752 [1994]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

[541]*541Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered February 16, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, since the record demonstrates that the witness in question was not knowledgeable about any material issue (see People v Welch, 307 AD2d 776, 777-778 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 625 [2003]).

The “Unusual Occurrence Report” and the “Homicide Analysis Report” did not constitute Brady material (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]) since the information contained in the reports was not exculpatory. In any event, assuming that the reports constituted Brady material, the defendant was provided with them at a time when he had a meaningful opportunity to use them (see People v Cortijo, 70 NY2d 868, 870 [1987]; People v Barnes, 200 AD2d 751, 752 [1994]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

People v. Minson, 3 A.D.3d 540, 770 N.Y.S.2d 632, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

3 A.D.3d 540 (People v. Minson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related