People v. Aguirre

• Decision Date: 07 February 1994
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Octavio AGUIRRE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 398

607 N.Y.S.2d 398

201 A.D.2d 485

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Octavio AGUIRRE, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Feb. 7, 1994.

John J. Marotta, Kew Gardens, for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, John M. Castellano, and Ellen Matowik, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, ALTMAN and HART, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), rendered December 18, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the court should have imposed a sanction because of the People's failure to provide him with a police officer's handwritten notes is without merit. As a general rule, a defendant has a right to inspect the prior statements of prosecution witnesses, prior to cross-examination, for impeachment purposes (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64). However, there is no obligation to produce statements that are duplicative equivalents of statements previously turned over to the defense (see, People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 454, 387 N.Y.S.2d 62, 354 N.E.2d 801, cert. denied 433 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2986, 53 L.Ed.2d 1100; People v. Winthrop, 171 A.D.2d 829, 567 N.Y.S.2d 531; People v. Velez, 161 A.D.2d 823, 556 N.Y.S.2d 147). Here, the arresting officer testified that he wrote down the names and addresses of the defendant and codefendants at the scene of the arrest. He then transferred the information to the police reports and destroyed the notes. The officer testified that there was no other information in the notes. Under these circumstances, the court's failure to impose a sanction was not error (see, People v. Daly, 186 A.D.2d 217, 587 N.Y.S.2d 747; People v. Winthrop, supra ). In any event, we note that the defendant was not prejudiced by the destruction of the arresting officer's handwritten notes (see, People v. Daly, supra ).

The defendant further claims that the court erred by refusing to deliver a missing witness charge with respect to a confidential informant. The record reveals that the informant disappeared of his own volition, without any assistance from law...