People v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 01 June 1992 |
| Citation | 584 N.Y.S.2d 186,184 A.D.2d 518 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles BROOKS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael J. Noonan, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (John Castellano and Robin A. Forshaw, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, RITTER and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered December 27, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Calabretta, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In the early morning hours on March 12, 1987, the defendant and an unapprehended accomplice were arguing with the victim, Alvin Barnett, over money Barnett allegedly owed the defendant for drugs. After instructing his accomplice to search Barnett's pockets for money, the defendant shot Barnett once in the head. Barnett later died as a result of the wound. Detectives arrested the defendant based on the information provided by witnesses, who later identified him in a lineup. The defendant was subsequently arraigned on the felony complaint, at which time the People, pursuant to CPL 190.50, provided notice to his attorney that they intended to submit the case to the Grand Jury and informing him of his right to testify before the Grand Jury upon reasonable notice to the People. The defendant did not testify, but after the indictment was voted, he orally informed the court of his desire to testify before the Grand Jury.
We find that the court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was not permitted to testify before the Grand Jury. The People's notice to the defendant's attorney, who was appearing for purposes of arraignment only, that they intended to submit the case to the Grand Jury, sufficiently apprised the defendant of his right to appear as a witness at the Grand Jury proceedings ( see, CPL 190.50[5][a]. Thereafter, the defendant was required to serve upon the District Attorney written notice of his intent to testify, and, having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Luna
...the defendant was apprised of his right to appear as a witness at the Grand Jury proceedings (see, CPL 190.50[5][a]; People v. Brooks, 184 A.D.2d 518, 584 N.Y.S.2d 186). The defendant's further contentions with respect to various rulings by the trial court are also meritless. The Sandoval r......
-
People v. Houston
...the trial court correctly refused to suppress the lineup identification testimony (see, People v. Coates, supra; People v. Brooks, 184 A.D.2d 518, 584 N.Y.S.2d 186). The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it precluded the defendant from presenting an alibi witnes......
-
People v. Fulton
...sufficient (People v. Green, 187 A.D.2d 528, 589 N.Y.S.2d 916; People v. Robinson, 187 A.D.2d 296, 589 N.Y.S.2d 453; People v. Brooks, 184 A.D.2d 518, 584 N.Y.S.2d 186; People v. Saldana, 161 A.D.2d 441, 556 N.Y.S.2d 534). Interpretation of the additional statutory requirement that the writ......
-
People v. Akel
...a witness, and defendant failed to serve upon the District Attorney written notice of his intent to testify (see, People v. Brooks, 184 A.D.2d 518, 518-519, 584 N.Y.S.2d 186, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 973, 591 N.Y.S.2d 142, 605 N.E.2d We reject the further contention of defendant that the court ......