People v. Copeland
| Decision Date | 13 July 1992 |
| Citation | 185 A.D.2d 280,585 N.Y.S.2d 794 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Dino COPELAND, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Peter A. Weinstein, and Leonard Joblove, of counsel), for appellant.
Stuart Birbach, New York City, for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and THOMPSON, ROSENBLATT and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated November 9, 1990, which, after a hearing, granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 330.30(3) to set aside a jury verdict convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree, assault in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), and ordered a new trial.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion to set aside the verdict is denied, the verdict is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the imposition of sentence.
We agree with the People that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30. In support of his motion to set aside the verdict, the defendant tendered alleged "newly discovered" evidence consisting of two witnesses whose potential testimony could have been produced at trial through the exercise of due diligence (see, CPL 330.30[3]; People v. Fielder, 154 A.D.2d 388, 389, 545 N.Y.S.2d 777; People v. Zambrana, 142 A.D.2d 744, 531 N.Y.S.2d 311).
One of the witnesses whose testimony was offered in support of the motion--Stanley Brewer--had been a close friend of the defendant for 10 years. Brewer's potential testimony was known to the defense counsel prior to trial. Accordingly, Brewer cannot be described as a newly-discovered witness. Moreover, although Brewer left New York briefly during the course of the trial, the record establishes that the defense counsel did not act diligently in making further efforts to obtain his testimony. After Brewer's departure, the defense counsel requested an adjournment to the following morning, stating that he was in the process of securing the presence of a witness, apparently referring to Brewer. Brewer was not produced the next day when the trial reconvened, and no further reference was made to his possible appearance as a witness. Even though the defense counsel had no reason to believe that Brewer's absence would be prolonged, counsel made no application for an additional adjournment to obtain his presence. Under the circumstances, due diligence required that the defense counsel at least request a further adjournment in order to ascertain whether Brewer would be available to testify on the defendant's behalf. The record is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laurey v. Graham
...inference that Parker's testimony would not be favorable to [petitioner]." A51 (Resp't Ex. A) (citing People v. Copeland, 185 A.D.2d 280, 585 N.Y.S.2d 794 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 1992) (reversing grant of C.P.L. § 330.30 motion where the potential testimony of the witnesses sought to be charact......
-
People v. Edwards, Indictment No.: 07-0106
...a continuance or demonstrate efforts to obtain the evidence before it will be considered newly discovered. People v. Copeland, 185 A.D.2d 280, 585 N.Y.S.2d 794 (2d Dep't 1992); People v. Zambrana, 142 A.D.2d 744 (2d Dep't 1988); People v. Hughes, 136 A.D.2d 916, 525 N.Y.S.2d 88 (4th Dep't 1......
-
People v. Johnson
...that the evidence could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence (see, CPL 330.40[2][g]; People v. Copeland, 185 A.D.2d 280, 585 N.Y.S.2d 794; People v. Johnson, 133 A.D.2d 781, 520 N.Y.S.2d 66; People v. Fielder, 154 A.D.2d 388, 545 N.Y.S.2d 777). Second, ther......
-
People v. Stover
...v. Boyette, 201 A.D.2d 490, 491, 607 N.Y.S.2d 402; People v. Johnson, 208 A.D.2d 562, 562-563, 617 N.Y.S.2d 27; People v. Copeland, 185 A.D.2d 280, 281-282, 585 N.Y.S.2d 794). The defendant's remaining contentions are without BRACKEN, J.P., ROSENBLATT, RITTER and LUCIANO, JJ., concur. ...