From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 11, 1990
161 A.D.2d 1176 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 11, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: It was proper for the prosecutor to fail to disclose the names of two suspects. Defendant failed to establish that their identity was potentially exculpatory (see, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87; People v Andre W., 44 N.Y.2d 179, 184; People v. LaBounty, 127 A.D.2d 989, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1005). Further, it was proper for the prosecutor to elicit testimony about defendant's fingerprints. Defendant's fingerprint card was not in evidence, nor was defendant's prior criminal history referred to in any way (cf., People v. Balone, 52 A.D.2d 216). Although it was improper for the prosecutor to elicit identification testimony, the error was harmless. There was overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant but for the error (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). The verdict was not contrary to the weight of evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495) and the sentence was not harsh and excessive (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302).


Summaries of

People v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 11, 1990
161 A.D.2d 1176 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Woods

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KEVIN WOODS, Appellant

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

Date published: May 11, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 1176 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 965

Citing Cases

People v. Rudenko

The testimony was based on a business record and thus constituted an exception to the rule against hearsay (…