People v. Brown
| Citation | 557 N.Y.S.2d 812,162 A.D.2d 1030 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry BROWN, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1990 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Linda S. Reynolds by Chrysanthe Vergos, Buffalo, for appellant.
Kevin M. Dillon by J. Michael Marion, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, J.P., and BOOMER, PINE, BALIO and LAWTON, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, attempted petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, arising out of the forgery of a stolen check.
After his trial but before sentencing, defendant moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that since the trial he had received an affidavit of codefendant Lawrence Evans absolving defendant of any involvement in the check-cashing fraud and implicating another individual instead. Defendant contended that, if this information was known to the People before trial, it constituted Brady material (see, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215), and, if it was not known, it constituted newly discovered evidence (CPL 330.30[3].
The People opposed the motion on the ground that there was no showing that Evans had personal knowledge of the incidents giving rise to the six counts against defendant, that during his plea colloquy Evans had given two inconsistent versions of the crime to which he pled guilty, that his sworn statement submitted on the instant motion gave yet another version, and that Evans had orally given a fourth version to the Assistant District Attorney after his plea. The People also alleged that this information was conveyed to defense counsel, an allegation that defense counsel denied.
The court denied the motion on the grounds that Evans' conclusory statement that defendant was not involved was not supported by any facts, and that the statement did not deal specifically with events on the date defendant was charged with crimes. The court noted that the presentence report indicated that Evans gave a different version of events every time he was asked to relate what had happened and concluded that Evans was not truthful. The author of the presentence report suspected collusion because Evans spent most of his interview trying to convince the investigator that defendant was innocent.
Defendant failed to request Brady material. He is not entitled to a new trial based on a Brady violation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jackson
...v. Nedrick, 166 A.D.2d 725, 727, 561 N.Y.S.2d 477, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 842, 567 N.Y.S.2d 210, 568 N.E.2d 659; People v. Brown, 162 A.D.2d 1030, 1031, 557 N.Y.S.2d 812 lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 836, 567 N.Y.S.2d 205, 568 N.E.2d 654; People v. Smyers, 167 A.D.2d 773, 775, 562 N.Y.S.2d 1017, lv. d......
-
People v. Smith
...probability of a more favorable verdict had Buckley's claims been placed before the jury (see CPL 330.30[3] ; People v. Brown , 162 A.D.2d 1030, 1031, 557 N.Y.S.2d 812 [1990], lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 836, 567 N.Y.S.2d 205, 568 N.E.2d 654 [1991] ; see also People v. Shaw , 174 A.D.3d 1036, 1038–......
-
Brown v. Williams, 91-CV-185S.
...A). In a memorandum order dated June 22, 1990, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, denied Petitioner's appeal. People v. Brown, 162 A.D.2d 1030, 557 N.Y.S.2d 812 (4th Dept.1990). According to the Court, Petitioner was not entitled to a new trial based on a Brady violation, or based o......
- People v. Stripling