Opinion
November 1, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends, inter alia, that the trial court committed reversible error by not, sua sponte, imposing a sanction on the prosecution due to the destruction of certain preliminary notes prepared by a testifying detective during the interrogation of the defendant. We disagree. There is no reason to believe that the defendant was prejudiced by the destruction of the notes, which were transcribed into the detective's final log, which was given to the defense. The defense had a full opportunity to cross-examine the detective regarding the destruction of the notes, and did not request that any sanction be imposed. Additionally, there was no evidence that the notes were destroyed in bad faith or for the purpose of denying the defense an opportunity to see them. Under these circumstances, we find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in not, sua sponte, imposing a sanction (see, People v Holmes, 188 A.D.2d 618; People v Mathews, 173 A.D.2d 565, 566; People v Springer, 153 A.D.2d 959, 960).
The photographs of the decedent were properly admitted into evidence on the issue of intent (see, People v Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369-370, cert denied 416 U.S. 905).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.