People v. Corso
| Decision Date | 07 December 1987 |
| Citation | 521 N.Y.S.2d 773,135 A.D.2d 551 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Peter CORSO, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Mark D. Cohen, of counsel), for appellant.
Clayton, Miller & Mayer, Hauppauge (Peter H. Mayer, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, LAWRENCE and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Namm J.), dated July 19, 1985, which, inter alia, suppressed certain evidence, and dismissed the second count of the indictment, 129 Misc.2d 590, 493 N.Y.S.2d 520.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence is denied, the second count of the indictment charging the defendant with the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings.
On June 16, 1979, Archimedes Cervera, an attorney, was murdered in his office. In November 1979 the Suffolk County Police Department received information from the FBI that one of their informants had been present when the defendant, Peter Corso, confessed to the murder. However, the FBI would not release the name of the informant or allow the police to speak directly with him. Without the identity of the informant the police did not have sufficient probable cause to arrest Corso. In October 1983 the informant came forward and after verifying his reliability with the FBI and through the use of a lie detector the police arrested Corso in April 1984 and charged him with murder. In a search incident to the arrest the police discovered cocaine on Corso's person which resulted in the second count of the indictment.
As a result of the defendant's omnibus motion, a hearing was held, which, inter alia, was to decide whether the police had probable cause to arrest Corso. At the hearing, police officers, an FBI agent and the informant testified, after which the court decided that there had been cause to make the arrest.
Shortly after the trial began a previously undisclosed police report surfaced which indicated that immediately after the murder the authorities were given the names of several suspects other than Corso. However, an in camera review of the police files revealed a complete absence of reports regarding any investigation of these suspects. In fact, there were no reports at all for the period from mid-June through late-December 1979.
It was also disclosed that an answering machine had been recovered from Cervera's office which contained a message from one of the suspects named in the report, recorded on or before the day of the murder. It was subsequently discovered that the answering machine and tape had been auctioned in May 1984 by the police property section, but both were eventually recovered from the person who purchased them. In order to determine if any additional police reports existed and if so, whether their suppression constituted a violation of the defendant's due process rights, the court, sua sponte, decided to hold what it called a Brady hearing (see, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215). The hearing was begun during the trial but it soon became evident that not all of the witnesses the parties wished to call would be immediately available. Therefore, the court decided to let the trial go forward and, if necessary, complete the hearings after the trial ended, reserving its decision on mistrial motions made by the defense.
The defendant was ultimately acquitted of the murder charge but the court opted to complete the hearings because it felt that the evidence adduced might impact on its prior decision on the issue of probable cause, which the court felt bound to review before proceeding to trial on the drug charge. Additionally the court wanted to determine if the police had engaged in the spoilation of evidence by their sale of the answering machine. The evidence ultimately produced at these hearings indicated that the police had not kept reports during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Greco
...the trial court whether to reopen the hearing (see, People v. Mercado, 62 N.Y.2d 866, 478 N.Y.S.2d 253, 466 N.E.2d 845; People v. Corso, 135 A.D.2d 551, 521 N.Y.S.2d 773). We reject the contention of defendant that the People's motion to reopen was untimely (cf., People v. Ireland, 217 A.D.......
-
Spinner v. Cnty. of Nassau
...498;People v. Walton, 309 A.D.2d 956, 766 N.Y.S.2d 93;People v. Archibald, 192 A.D.2d 537, 538, 595 N.Y.S.2d 820;People v. Corso, 135 A.D.2d 551, 554, 521 N.Y.S.2d 773). The MTA defendants similarly demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with......
-
People v. Archibald
...the police may have failed to investigate another possible suspect does not require a contrary result (see, e.g., People v. Corso, 135 A.D.2d 551, 554, 521 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Fabian, 126 A.D.2d 664, 511 N.Y.S.2d 92). In any event, as the officer's initial approach toward the defendant ......
-
People v. Walker
...right (see, People v March, 271 A.D.2d 700; People v Mack, 224 A.D.2d 447, 448; cf., People v Figliolo, 207 A.D.2d 679, 681; People v Corso, 135 A.D.2d 551, 553), nor did they demonstrate that defense counsel's failure to move to reopen the suppression hearing rose to the level of ineffecti......