From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Johnson v. Brandveen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 26, 1990
160 A.D.2d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

April 26, 1990


Defendant's application for the production of a photograph of the 15-year-old kidnapping and rape victim does not come within the scope of CPL 240.20 and, despite defendant's claim of a prior relationship with the complainant, we discern no theory under which this item, which does not even exist, constitutes exculpatory material (see, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83) or the prior statement of a prosecution witness (see, People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286; People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446). Nor is it within the scope of respondent's authorized powers to compel the People to create this, or any, evidence for the defendant.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Johnson v. Brandveen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 26, 1990
160 A.D.2d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Johnson v. Brandveen

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROBERT T. JOHNSON, as District Attorney of Bronx County…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 26, 1990

Citations

160 A.D.2d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

Farrell v. Labuda

Thus, this proceeding falls within “the well-established exception to the mootness doctrine for recurring…

People v. Nicholas

But see People v Trocchio ( 107 Misc.2d 610 [1980]) where the prosecution intended to introduce serological…