People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 22 June 1995 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clifton BROWN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gaspar M. Castillo Jr., Albany, for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, Dist. Atty. (Christopher D. Horn, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Canfield, J.), rendered January 19, 1993, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
On January 11, 1992, the police received an anonymous phone call advising that there were guns under a mattress in a bedroom at 444 Clinton Avenue in the City of Albany. Officers responded to that residence, obtained permission to search the apartment and, ultimately, found three handguns and a shotgun under the mattress in defendant's bedroom. Defendant was thereafter indicted and charged with three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and was thereafter sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years.
At the trial defendant denied possession of the weapons in question contending that they were his brother's, who had access to and used the subject bedroom. In support of defendant's knowing possession of the handguns, the People offered exhibit No. 11 into evidence, which was a polaroid photograph taken from defendant's bedroom depicting an individual, purportedly defendant, holding a handgun. The People offered the exhibit on the theory that it was a photograph of defendant holding one of the very handguns found under the mattress and was, therefore, relevant to the element of knowing possession. Defense counsel objected to the offer on the ground that there was no proof that what was depicted in the exhibit was, in fact, one of the guns at issue at trial. County Court, without any authentication testimony, admitted the exhibit into evidence. 1 Defendant claims this to have been reversible error. We agree.
It has long been established that in order to admit a photograph into evidence, authentication is required (see, People v. Byrnes, 33 N.Y.2d 343, 349, 352 N.Y.S.2d 913, 308 N.E.2d 435). Photographs are authenticated by testimony of a person familiar with the object portrayed therein that it is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Faulk
...exercise its discretion in granting the jury's request (see People v. Brown, 277 A.D.2d 972, 972, 716 N.Y.S.2d 540 ; People v. Brown, 216 A.D.2d 737, 738, 628 N.Y.S.2d 835 ; People v. Moody, 195 A.D.2d 1016, 1017, 600 N.Y.S.2d 581 ).The defendant's contention that the County Court impermiss......
-
Harris v. Great Meadow Corr. Facility
...with the object portrayed therein." Cochrane v. McGinnis, 50 F. App'x 478, 480 (2d Cir. 2002) (summary order) (quoting People v. Brown, 216 A.D.2d 737, 738 (2d Dep't 1995)). The petitioner does not dispute the photograph's authenticity or explain why the trial court should not have admitted......
-
Hayes v. Lee
...depicted in the Photograph was the same handgun that was recovered from the apartment. (Pet. Obj. at 7-8 (citing People v. Brown, 216 A.D.2d 737, 738 (3d Dept. 1995)) Brown, relied on by Petitioner, is distinguishable. In Brown, the defendant was charged with criminal possession of weapons ......
-
Webb v. Griffin, 10-CV-0585(MAT)
...the police officer who recovered the shotgun that it was the same weapon as that depicted in thephotographs. See People v. Brown, 216 A.D.2d 737, 738 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 1995) ("It has long been established that in order to admit a photograph into evidence, authentication is required. Photo......