People v. Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramos

41 A.D.2d 669, 341 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5098

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 669 (People v. Ramos) 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. Ramos, 41 A.D.2d 669, 341 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 4, 1970, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fifth degree, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. About a week before the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, the arresting police officer refreshed his recollection from his “ scratch notes ” and destroyed them. He did not destroy his original arrest notes, but left them with the police property clerk, and they were therefore available for production upon defendant’s demand and for use in cross-examination if defendant so desired. So far as the record indicates, the original notes were substantially the same as the scratch notes and, consequently, the destruction of the latter could not have had the effect of defeating cross-examination (cf. People v. Betts, 272 App. Div. 737, affd. 297 N. Y. 1000). Since defendant did not demand production of the original notes, People v. Malinsley (15 N Y 2d 86) and People V. Rosario (9 N Y 2d 286) do not apply. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 4, 1970, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fifth degree, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. About a week before the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, the arresting police officer refreshed his recollection from his “ scratch notes ” and destroyed them. He did not destroy his original arrest notes, but left them with the police property clerk, and they were therefore available for production upon defendant’s demand and for use in cross-examination if defendant so desired. So far as the record indicates, the original notes were substantially the same as the scratch notes and, consequently, the destruction of the latter could not have had the effect of defeating cross-examination (cf. People v. Betts, 272 App. Div. 737, affd. 297 N. Y. 1000). Since defendant did not demand production of the original notes, People v. Malinsley (15 N Y 2d 86) and People V. Rosario (9 N Y 2d 286) do not apply. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 669, 341 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramos-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack