People v. Bryce
| Decision Date | 07 May 1996 |
| Citation | 666 N.E.2d 221,643 N.Y.S.2d 516,88 N.Y.2d 124 |
| Parties | , 666 N.E.2d 221 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Blaine P. BRYCE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Wilcox, Troy, for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, District Attorney of Albany County, Albany (John E. Maney, of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Division which denied without a hearing his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to set aside a judgment convicting him of murder in the second degree. He alleged several grounds for relief but we find merit only in his allegation that the People failed to preserve and deliver Brady material to him before trial after assuring him they would do so. Accordingly, we remit for a hearing to determine if the People made such representations, whether the material allegedly withheld was exculpatory and if so, whether there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been changed had the jury heard it.
Defendant has been convicted after a jury trial of the 1988 murder of his seven-week-old son under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life (Penal Law § 125.25[2]. The death certificate assigned the cause of death to a massive brain hemorrhage due to a fractured skull. The coroner's pathologists filed two autopsy reports and a third report was filed by a pathologist from the State Police forensic team who had examined the skull and brain tissue of the victim. Though the reports differed somewhat, their findings were generally consistent with the cause of death stated on the death certificate.
It was the theory of the prosecution that defendant, while caring for his son, inflicted serious injuries on him causing his death. Defendant, on the other hand, contended the death was accidental. He admitted that he had dropped the infant to the floor while he was caring for him and that he had subsequently shaken him in the belief that the child was choking, but he contended that he did not intentionally or recklessly injure him.
Because the incident took place when defendant and the victim were alone, the proof of depraved indifference rested largely on the nature of the injuries and their possible causes. The coroner's pathologists testified they had observed a fracture to the front of the skull during the autopsy and other medical experts called by the People, relying on X rays of the infant's head, confirmed that finding. The fracture was described as running from the anterior fontanelle of the head to the bridge of the nose: in the words the prosecutor used to the jury the
On direct, the prosecutor elicited testimony from his medical experts that the fracture could not have been accidental and that the hemorrhage of the infant's brain resulted from excessive blows to the head. One expert concluded that a fracture like the one observed on the front of the infant's skull could result only from the application of force equivalent to that which a body might experience from being dropped from a second story window or being involved in a high speed auto accident.
Defendant called two medical experts who testified that after examining the CAT scans, X rays and autopsy results they found no evidence of a fracture to the frontal bone. They concluded that the medical evidence was consistent with defendant's assertion that the death was accidental.
Although defendant had requested the skull and samples of brain tissue for his experts to examine, and alleges that he was assured they would be available, the only physical evidence delivered to him was a small piece of bone, represented as evidence of the fracture in the middle of the victim's forehead, and portions of the liver, spleen, testes and other organs unrelated to any head injury. They had been preserved in an empty coffee can. On cross-examination the prosecutor used the insufficiency of this evidence to elicit admissions from defendant's experts that the basis for their opinions was weaker than the opinions of the two pathologists who had observed the skull during the autopsy and swore that it was fractured.
After the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, defendant obtained an order to exhume the infant's body and discovered that the skull had not been preserved for examination but had been buried along with the infant's remains. From an examination of it, witnessed by the People's forensic experts and representatives of the District Attorney's office, the defense medical experts determined that the infant had not sustained a fracture to the front of his skull. The People do not rebut that finding in their motion papers. Defendant further alleges without contradiction that it was apparent to all the experts examining the skull that the piece of bone originally turned over to the defense experts as evidence of the frontal fracture, actually came from the side of the skull. When advised of this, one of the People's pathologists produced another bone, never before shown to defendant's experts, asserting it was part of the infant's skull. None of the experts, however, could relate it to the small bone previously examined or to the infant's exhumed skull.
Based upon these observations of the infant's skull, defendant moved to vacate the judgment and for a new trial on the grounds of (1) misconduct by the District Attorney, (2) newly discovered evidence and (3) the violation of his constitutional rights, i.e., failure to preserve and deliver Brady material (see, CPL 440.10[1][b], [g], [h] ). County Court denied the motion without a hearing and the Appellate Division affirmed (210 AD2d 816).
A motion to vacate a judgment based upon a claim of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the lower courts (see, People v. Brown, 56 N.Y.2d 242, 246, 451 N.Y.S.2d 693, 436 N.E.2d 1295; People v. Crimmins, 38 N.Y.2d 407, 409, 381 N.Y.S.2d 1, 343 N.E.2d 719). Moreover, we agree with the courts below that the allegations of misconduct, other than those relating to the delivery of the skull and brain tissue, are conclusory and do not warrant a hearing (see, People v. Brown, supra ). However, we conclude that a hearing should be held to determine whether the District Attorney misrepresented to defense counsel that the skull and brain tissue had been preserved and that they would be available for examination by his experts before trial, whether the skull constituted Brady material and, if it did, whether a new trial is required.
A defendant has a right, guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petronio v. Walsh
...cases that fit into this category all involve the severe mistreatment of infants or young children. See People v. Bryce, 88 N.Y.2d 124, 126, 643 N.Y.S.2d 516, 666 N.E.2d 221 (1996) (affirming depraved indifference murder conviction for defendant who inflicted serious injuries on his seven-w......
-
Fuentes v. Griffin
...in the People's possession material to guilt or punishment (see Brady , 373 U.S. at 87–88, 83 S.Ct. 1194 ; People v Bryce , 88 N.Y.2d 124, 128, 643 N.Y.S.2d 516, 666 N.E.2d 221 [1996] ). Impeachment evidence falls within the ambit of a prosecutor's Brady obligation (see Giglio v United Stat......
-
People v. Garrett
...a fair trial (United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 [1985] ; see People v. Bryce, 88 N.Y.2d 124, 129, 643 N.Y.S.2d 516, 666 N.E.2d 221 [1996] ). The People, in their role as truth-seekers in criminal trials, have a “broad obligation to disclose exculpato......
-
People v. Hakim-Peters
...infants and very young children ( see, People v. Poplis, 30 N.Y.2d 85, 330 N.Y.S.2d 365, 281 N.E.2d 167, supra; People v. Bryce, 88 N.Y.2d 124, 643 N.Y.S.2d 516, 666 N.E.2d 221 [1978]; People v. Baker, 58 A.D.3d 1069, 872 N.Y.S.2d 229 [3d Dept. 2009], affd. 14 N.Y.3d 266, 899 N.Y.S.2d 733, ......
-
Theodore T. Jones, the defendant's champion: reviewing a sample of Judge Jones's criminal jurisprudence.
...N.Y.S.2d at 374. (181) Id. at 263, 907 N.E.2d at 289, 879 N.Y.S.2d at 376 (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); People v. Bryce, 88 N.Y.2d 124, 128, 666 N.E.2d 221, 643 N.Y.S.2d 516 (182) Id. at 263, 907 N.E.2d at 289, 879 N.Y.S.2d at 376 (citation omitted). (183) Id. (citations om......