Opinion
1239 KA 15–01257
03-13-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Benjamin BROWNLEE, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation ( Penal Law § 121.11[a] ). We affirm.
We reject defendant's contention that the prosecution committed a Brady violation by belatedly disclosing certain medical records that purportedly established the victim's lack of injuries following the alleged altercation with defendant. "To establish a Brady violation warranting a new trial, the defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v. Ulett, 33 N.Y.3d 512, 515, 129 N.E.3d 909 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 [1963] ).
Here, the medical records documenting the victim's lack of injuries were favorable to defendant inasmuch as they "tend[ed] to show that [he was] not guilty" ( People v. Garrett, 23 N.Y.3d 878, 886, 994 N.Y.S.2d 22, 18 N.E.3d 722 [2014], rearg. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1215, 16 N.Y.S.3d 508, 37 N.E.3d 1151 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). However, the People's failure to disclose the medical records until six days before trial did not constitute the suppression of those records because defendant was "afforded a meaningful opportunity to use [the records] to cross-examine the People's witnesses or as evidence-in-chief" ( People v. Burroughs, 64 A.D.3d 894, 898, 882 N.Y.S.2d 751 [3d Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 794, 887 N.Y.S.2d 544, 916 N.E.2d 439 [2009] ; see People v. Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868, 870, 523 N.Y.S.2d 463, 517 N.E.2d 1349 [1987] ; cf. People v. Carver, 114 A.D.3d 1199, 1199, 979 N.Y.S.2d 752 [4th Dept. 2014] ).
Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the prosecution's delay in disclosure did constitute suppression, we conclude that the records were not material because there was no " ‘reasonable possibility’ that the failure to disclose the medical records contributed to the verdict" ( People v. Vilardi, 76 N.Y.2d 67, 77, 556 N.Y.S.2d 518, 555 N.E.2d 915 [1990] ; see generally People v. Rong He, 34 N.Y.3d 956, 959, 112 N.Y.S.3d 1, 135 N.E.3d 1081 [2019] ; People v. McCray, 23 N.Y.3d 193, 198–199, 989 N.Y.S.2d 649, 12 N.E.3d 1079 [2014], rearg. denied 24 N.Y.3d 947, 994 N.Y.S.2d 47, 18 N.E.3d 749 [2014] ; People v. Fuentes, 12 N.Y.3d 259, 264–265, 879 N.Y.S.2d 373, 907 N.E.2d 286 [2009], rearg. denied 13 N.Y.3d 766, 886 N.Y.S.2d 866, 915 N.E.2d 1163 [2009] ). Finally, we further conclude that any alleged Brady violation here is harmless. The People presented overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt—namely, the consistent testimony of three eyewitnesses who described defendant's attack on the victim—and there is no reasonable possibility that any error contributed to the verdict (see People v. Robinson, 267 A.D.2d 981, 981, 701 N.Y.S.2d 191 [4th Dept. 1999], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 838, 713 N.Y.S.2d 145, 735 N.E.2d 425 [2000] ).