Summary
In Bolling the lab report in question was provided to the defense during the cross-examination of complainant, the People's first witness.
Summary of this case from People v. RowlandOpinion
January 16, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant first contends that the failure of the prosecution to provide him with a transcript of a tape recording of a conversation between a police officer and an informant, as well as a copy of the criminal record of the informant, constituted a violation of Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83). We disagree.
The rule of Brady v. Maryland (supra) does not direct disclosure at any particular point of the proceedings (see, People v. Jemmott, 144 A.D.2d 694). Rather, the inquiry is whether the defense was afforded ample opportunity to utilize the evidence effectively (see, People v. Summons, 36 N.Y.2d 126; People v. Clark, 89 A.D.2d 820). In this case, the evidence was disclosed on the People's direct case and the defendant had sufficient time to and did in fact utilize this material. There is no indication that an earlier disclosure would have had any effect on the outcome of the trial (see, People v. Clark, supra).
The defendant's claim that reversal is warranted in light of the introduction of evidence of uncharged crimes has not been preserved for our review as no objection was made at the time this testimony was adduced (see, CPL 470.05; People v Muriell, 128 A.D.2d 554). In any event, the claim is without merit. A proper limiting instruction was given to the jury, and there is no indication that this evidence was offered merely to prove the defendant's criminal predisposition (see, People v Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264). We find this testimony to be proper (cf., People v. Bolling, 120 A.D.2d 601).
Additionally, we find the statement of the police informant to have been properly admitted under the coconspirator's exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v. Sanders, 56 N.Y.2d 51; People v. Salko, 47 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Bisnett, 144 A.D.2d 567, 570).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
We have reviewed the remainder of the defendant's contentions and have found them to be either unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.