People v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 24 January 1994 |
| Citation | 606 N.Y.S.2d 757,200 A.D.2d 677 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edmundo BAILEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (William A. Loeb, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Carol Teague Schwartzkopf, and Joseph Tucker, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered March 27, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested in a so-called "buy and bust" operation after he sold two vials of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. The same narcotics team that arrested the defendant made several other buy and bust arrests that night. Following the arrests, the undercover officer involved filled out individual expense reports showing the amount of prerecorded money used in each transaction. A copy of the expense report prepared by the undercover officer for the transaction involving the defendant was provided to the defense counsel, along with a copy of all prerecorded money distributed to the officers at the beginning of the buy and bust operation that night.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the expense reports prepared in connection with the arrests of other individuals did not constitute Rosario material. The trial court therefore did not err in refusing to compel the prosecution to produce them. The right to inspect statements of a prosecution witness is limited to those statements relevant to the subject matter of the witness's testimony (see, People v. Rios, 182 A.D.2d 843, 582 N.Y.S.2d 798; see also, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 148-149, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697). As no testimony concerning the arrests of other individuals was elicited during the direct examination of the prosecution witnesses, the People were not obligated to make the additional expense reports available to the defendant (see, People v. Rios, supra; People v. Melendez, 178 A.D.2d 366, 577 N.Y.S.2d 815; People v. Goldman, 175 A.D.2d 723, 573 N.Y.S.2d 282; cf., People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 490 N.Y.S.2d 747, 480 N.E.2d 361).
The defense counsel used his peremptory challenges to excuse all four white male prospective jurors from the jury panel. The prosecutor claimed that the challenges showed a pattern of exclusion of white males. The trial court concluded that the prosecutor had made a prima facie showing of a pattern of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Richie
...620 N.Y.S.2d 426; People v. Stiff, 206 A.D.2d 235, 620 N.Y.S.2d 87; People v. Dixon, 202 A.D.2d 12, 615 N.Y.S.2d 904; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677, 606 N.Y.S.2d 757; People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462, 594 N.Y.S.2d 287). Obviously, in a case where counsel advances, as a reason for his o......
-
People v. Louis
...218 A.D.2d 671, 630 N.Y.S.2d 360; People v. Richie, supra; People v. Bennett, 206 A.D.2d 382, 614 N.Y.S.2d 430; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677, 606 N.Y.S.2d 757; People v. Duncan, 177 A.D.2d 187, 582 N.Y.S.2d 847). Moreover, the defense counsel admittedly acted intuitively and failed to p......
-
People v. Thomas
...552 N.E.2d 621, affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395; People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559, 616 N.Y.S.2d 781; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677, 606 N.Y.S.2d 757; People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462, 594 N.Y.S.2d Furthermore, although defense counsel also argued during voir dire tha......
-
People v. Miller
...658 N.Y.S.2d 365; People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559, 616 N.Y.S.2d 781; People v. Jones, 204 A.D.2d 485, 611 N.Y.S.2d 640; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677, 606 N.Y.S.2d 757; People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462, 594 N.Y.S.2d O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur. ...