People v. Osborne

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Osborne

689 N.E.2d 526, 91 N.Y.2d 827, 666 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 3688

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 689 N.E.2d 526 (People v. Osborne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Osborne, 689 N.E.2d 526, 91 N.Y.2d 827, 666 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 3688 (N.Y. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Division which affirmed a judgment of conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]). During the cross-examination of one of the People’s witnesses, it was discovered that the witness had been previously convicted of disorderly conduct as a result of an assault upon his wife. The trial prosecutor was unaware of the conviction. The court granted a brief recess and provided defense counsel with an opportunity to examine materials concerning the facts of the incident. Defendant’s attorney then pursued the matter further on cross-examination. Defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the information should have been provided to defense counsel by the prosecutor pursuant to CPL 240.45 (1) (b). We need not determine the scope of the obligation imposed by the statute on the prosecutor, however, for defendant would not be entitled to a new trial in any event. Defendant was "given a meaningful opportunity to use the allegedly exculpatory material to cross-examine the People’s witnesses” (see, People v Cortijo, 70 *829 NY2d 868, 870). Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Division which affirmed a judgment of conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]). During the cross-examination of one of the People’s witnesses, it was discovered that the witness had been previously convicted of disorderly conduct as a result of an assault upon his wife. The trial prosecutor was unaware of the conviction. The court granted a brief recess and provided defense counsel with an opportunity to examine materials concerning the facts of the incident. Defendant’s attorney then pursued the matter further on cross-examination. Defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the information should have been provided to defense counsel by the prosecutor pursuant to CPL 240.45 (1) (b). We need not determine the scope of the obligation imposed by the statute on the prosecutor, however, for defendant would not be entitled to a new trial in any event. Defendant was "given a meaningful opportunity to use the allegedly exculpatory material to cross-examine the People’s witnesses” (see, People v Cortijo, 70 *829 NY2d 868, 870). Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 N.E.2d 526, 91 N.Y.2d 827, 666 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 3688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-osborne-ny-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack