People v. Corley

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation507 N.Y.S.2d 491,124 A.D.2d 390
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David W. CORLEY, Appellant.
Decision Date30 October 1986

James R. Hickey, Jr., Ithaca, for appellant.

Benjamin J. Bucko, Dist. Atty. (R. James Miller, of counsel), Ithaca, for respondent.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.

MAIN, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Trial Term (Ellison, J.), rendered April 30, 1984 in Tompkins County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, as a felony.

Defendant was tried and convicted of operating a motor vehicle with at least .10% of alcohol in his blood (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2] ) and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3] ). On this appeal, defendant urges that he was impermissibly prejudiced by the People's failure to supply him, until the first day of trial, with documents relating to the testing and calibration of the breathalyzer instrument used to test defendant's blood alcohol level. Some time prior to trial, defendant had submitted to the People a demand to produce, inter alia, written reports or documents concerning any scientific tests or experiments relating to the criminal action. It appears from the record that, in response to this demand, the People produced only the test results themselves. When confronted with the additional documentation at trial, defendant moved to suppress the test results or for a continuance. Finding that defendant's demand to produce could not be interpreted as requesting this documentation, the trial court denied the motion.

We are constrained to agree that defendant was prejudiced by the People's failure to timely produce the documentation. In People v. English, 103 A.D.2d 979, 480 N.Y.S.2d 56, we found that the trial court erred in denying discovery of breathalyzer machine records, since such records are "written report[s] or document[s] * * * concerning a * * * scientific test * * * relating to the criminal action or proceeding which [were] made by, or at the request or discretion of a public servant engaged in law enforcement activity" (CPL 240.20[1] [c] ). Accordingly, the People were required to turn over the breathlayzer records upon request in the present case. While this case does differ from English in that the defendant's demand to produce in English specifically requested calibration documents, we do not agree with the trial court that defendant's request was too broadly worded. The only scientific test performed in this case was the breathalyzer test, and defendant's demand therefore could be interpreted only to refer to this test. Further, the wording of the request does not limit the request to test results, but demands all documents relating to the test.

The People's failure to turn over these documents when requested cannot be said to be harmless error. While a new trial is not automatically required when requested evidence has not been turned over, a denial of a new trial generally occurs when the evidence might have proved useful to the defense but most likely would not have changed the verdict (see, People v. McMullen, 92 A.D.2d 1059, 461 N.Y.S.2d 565). However, the breathalyzer documents were much more important in the present case. In order to introduce into evidence the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • People v. Hernandez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 26 Enero 2011
    ...Dept., 2008)lv to appeal denied. 11 N.Y.3d 857, 872 N.Y.S.2d 80, 900 N.E.2d 563 (2008) (citations omitted). See also People v. Corley, 124 A.D.2d 390, 391, 507 N.Y.S.2d 491 [1986]; People v. English, 103 A.D.2d at 979, 480 N.Y.S.2d 56. 16 If the instrument certifies itself without "hands on......
  • People v. Palumbo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 19 Octubre 1994
    ...to the foundation of the scientific test at issue (see, People v. Erickson, 156 A.D.2d 760, 762, 549 N.Y.S.2d 182; People v. Corley, 124 A.D.2d 390, 391, 507 N.Y.S.2d 491; People v. English, 103 A.D.2d 979, 480 N.Y.S.2d 56). This court finds that defendant's request numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8......
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 5 Octubre 1987
  • People v. Sullivan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 6 Mayo 1999
    ...was not warranted, for defendant failed to established how he was prejudiced by late receipt of the report (cf., People v. Corley, 124 A.D.2d 390, 391, 507 N.Y.S.2d 491), and that a continuance was not necessary because the report had been made available to the defense some 24 hours before ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT