People v. Stern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stern

270 A.D.2d 118, 704 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2861

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 118 (People v. Stern) 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. Stern, 270 A.D.2d 118, 704 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), entered January 7, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Alfred Kleiman, J.), rendered January 29, 1990, convicting defendant, after a [119]*119jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to vacate judgment was properly denied. The ballistics and serology documents concerning tests conducted on a certain vehicle found two days after the murder of the victim were not Brady material (Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83) because they were not in the People’s possession (People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 73). On the contrary, the documents were in the possession of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, which is not a law enforcement agency (People v Washington, 86 NY2d 189), and thus possession of the documents at issue cannot be attributed to the People (People v Wright, 225 AD2d 430, lv denied 88 NY2d 1026). Likewise, there was no violation of the People’s disclosure obligations under CPL 240.20 (supra). Furthermore, the documents were not exculpatory, and were actually consistent with the prosecution’s case. In any event, they did not contradict defendant’s tape-recorded admissions that he orchestrated the murder of which he was convicted (see, People v Stern, 226 AD2d 238, lv denied 88 NY2d 969). Defendant’s claim that disclosure of the documents might have led to exculpatory evidence rests entirely on speculation.

The remaining branch of defendant’s motion, alleging improper redactions of tape-recorded conversations admitted at defendant’s trial and disclosed to him well in advance of trial, are procedurally defective (CPL 440.10 [3] [a], [c]; 440.30 [4]) and without merit. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), entered January 7, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Alfred Kleiman, J.), rendered January 29, 1990, convicting defendant, after a [119]*119jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to vacate judgment was properly denied. The ballistics and serology documents concerning tests conducted on a certain vehicle found two days after the murder of the victim were not Brady material (Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83) because they were not in the People’s possession (People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 73). On the contrary, the documents were in the possession of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, which is not a law enforcement agency (People v Washington, 86 NY2d 189), and thus possession of the documents at issue cannot be attributed to the People (People v Wright, 225 AD2d 430, lv denied 88 NY2d 1026). Likewise, there was no violation of the People’s disclosure obligations under CPL 240.20 (supra). Furthermore, the documents were not exculpatory, and were actually consistent with the prosecution’s case. In any event, they did not contradict defendant’s tape-recorded admissions that he orchestrated the murder of which he was convicted (see, People v Stern, 226 AD2d 238, lv denied 88 NY2d 969). Defendant’s claim that disclosure of the documents might have led to exculpatory evidence rests entirely on speculation.

The remaining branch of defendant’s motion, alleging improper redactions of tape-recorded conversations admitted at defendant’s trial and disclosed to him well in advance of trial, are procedurally defective (CPL 440.10 [3] [a], [c]; 440.30 [4]) and without merit. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 118, 704 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stern-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack