People v. Allgood
| Decision Date | 10 November 1987 |
| Citation | 517 N.E.2d 1316,70 N.Y.2d 812,523 N.Y.S.2d 431 |
| Parties | , 517 N.E.2d 1316 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Allen ALLGOOD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.
Having been convicted after a jury trial of sexual misconduct, defendant now argues that his right to due process of law was violated when a "rape kit" that included spermatozoa taken from the complainant's person and underpants was destroyed by the police department property clerk. The "rape kit" had been vouchered before defendant's arrest and, consequently, was labeled "investigatory" rather than evidence to be held for trial. As a result of an oversight, the "rape kit's" label was not changed when defendant was arrested and charged, and the evidence was thereafter mistakenly destroyed in accordance with a departmental policy of routinely disposing of unclaimed investigatory property after one year. The destruction of the "rape kit" was first disclosed during the trial testimony of the officer who had vouchered it. According to this officer, she had no knowledge of its destruction until she tried to obtain it from the property clerk on the morning before she was scheduled to testify.
The inadvertent destruction of the "rape kit" provides no basis for a reversal in this case. Defendant was aware of the existence of the "rape kit" some eight months before it was destroyed but never sought its production or expressed an interest in performing independent tests until its destruction was disclosed in the middle of trial. On this record, the only conclusion to be drawn is that defendant forfeited whatever right he had to demand production of the "rape kit" and, consequently, he cannot now complain about the People's failure to preserve it (see, People v. Reed, 44 N.Y.2d 799, 406 N.Y.S.2d 283, 377 N.E.2d 737).
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...that he was prevented from performing an independent test because the swab was consumed in the 1992 test (see, People v. Allgood, 70 N.Y.2d 812, 523 N.Y.S.2d 431, 517 N.E.2d 1316). When the existence of the laboratory report of the 1992 test was revealed at trial, defense counsel objected o......
-
People v. Smith
...768). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Allgood, 70 N.Y.2d 812, 813, 523 N.Y.S.2d 431, 517 N.E.2d 1316; People v. Goodman, 31 N.Y.2d 262, 269, 338 N.Y.S.2d 97, 290 N.E.2d 139; People v. Zannone, 130 A.D.2d 699, 5......
-
People v. Austin
...In addition, the inadvertent destruction of the "rape kit" does not provide a basis for reversal (see, People v. Allgood, 70 N.Y.2d 812, 523 N.Y.S.2d 431, 517 N.E.2d 1316; see also, Arizona v. Youngblood, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281). Under the circumstances, the court did......
-
People v. Riviere
...challenged that they did in fact contain cocaine. Thus, his belated claim of prejudice is unpersuasive (see, People v. Allgood, 70 N.Y.2d 812, 523 N.Y.S.2d 431, 517 N.E.2d 1316; People v. Deresky, 134 A.D.2d 512, 521 N.Y.S.2d 100; People v. Henderson, 123 A.D.2d 883, 507 N.Y.S.2d 662). More......