People v. Pressley

234 A.D.2d 954, 652 N.Y.S.2d 436
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 1996·No. Appeal No. 2·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: With the permission of this Court, defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. The motion was properly denied. We agree with defendant that the prosecutor failed to fulfill his obligation to turn over Brady material by failing to provide defendant with complete and accurate information concerning the criminal background of a prosecution witness. The duty to disclose Brady material is a duty "shared by the prosecutor’s office as a whole” (People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 8). The convictions that were not disclosed to defendant were Oneida County convictions, and the trial prosecutor is charged with knowledge of them. We conclude, however, that the error is harmless. There is no rea[955]*955sonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict (see, People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77). The testimony of the witness concerning alleged jailhouse admissions by defendant was relevant to the charge of intentional murder, of which defendant was acquitted (see, People v Miles, 115 AD2d 964, lv denied 67 NY2d 763). Defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder, of which there is overwhelming proof of guilt. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Court, Cunningham, J.—CPL art 440.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. Pressley, 234 A.D.2d 954, 652 N.Y.S.2d 436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

234 A.D.2d 954 (People v. Pressley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Clarke
242 A.D.2d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)