People v. Emmons
| Decision Date | 31 May 1979 |
| Citation | 417 N.Y.S.2d 432,99 Misc.2d 941 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Craig Joseph EMMONS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Lawrence T. Kurlander, Dist. Atty. for the County of Monroe, by Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People; Glenn E. Pezzulo, of counsel.
Roy W. King, and Joseph C. Rinere, Jr., Rochester, for defendant.
DECISION
This is an application by the defendant to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that material evidence was destroyed by the police.
The defendant is charged with Manslaughter 1st Degree and he has interposed the defense of justification. The defendant claims the victim violently forced his way into the defendant's apartment and that he shot the victim in self defense. The same door was also forced open by the police in order to effect the arrest of the defendant. The police assumed custody of the door, had photographs taken and had tests conducted. The defendant's attorney viewed the door, and he requested both the police and the Assistant District Attorney to preserve the door as evidence.
The police without authorization returned the door to the owner of the apartment complex approximately one month after the homicide and it is now unavailable. The Assistant District Attorney first learned of the door's loss after a pre-trial hearing. The defendant's expert has stated that the photographs of the door are valueless and that without the door he cannot render an opinion regarding the force exerted by the victim or police. The results of the tests conducted at the request of the police as well as the photographs have been turned over to the defense for its inspection.
There can be no doubt that absent the door's destruction the defendant would have been entitled to access to it as evidence material to his guilt or innocence (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215), and that the action of the police in this case must be imputed to the prosecution (United States v. Bryant, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 132, 439 F.2d 642; People v. Maynard, 80 Misc.2d 279, 363 N.Y.S.2d 384; People v. Churba, 76 Misc.2d 1028, 353 N.Y.S.2d 130).
The federal courts (e. g., United States v. Harrison, 173 U.S.App.D.C. 260, 524 F.2d 421 destruction of notes of interviews with key eyewitnesses by FBI agents), the courts of our sister states (e. g., People v. Hitch, 12 Cal.3d 641, 117 Cal.Rptr. 9, 527 P.2d 361 destruction of ampules used in breathalyzer by police) and the courts of this state (e. g., People ex rel. Hairston v. Adult Detention Center, 76 Misc.2d 1010, 352 N.Y.S.2d 326 loss of stenographic notes of the preliminary hearing minutes by court reporter) all have imposed upon the prosecutor a duty to preserve evidence.
(The excellent memorandum of law furnished by the defense cites many additional cases decided by the federal courts and other state courts.)
In this case the door was a critical item of evidence, there was a request by the defendant's attorney for its preservation and its loss was inadvertent. This is the predicate for the second category enunciated in United States v. Keough, 2 Cir., 391 F.2d 138 "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of prosecution."
However, United States v. Keough, supra, may have oversimplified this principle. United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 89 S.Ct. 528, 21 L.Ed.2d 537, indicated that sanctions are not appropriate where the loss was in good faith. The general rule in federal courts is that sanctions will not be imposed where the loss was inadvertent and there was no undue prejudice (People v. Aviles, 89 Misc.2d 1, 391 N.Y.S.2d 303, citing federal circuit court decisions). Even in the landmark case of United States v. Bryant, supra, where a tape recording was lost and the negligence of the agent was "regrettably great," the defendant's conviction on remand was upheld on appeal (United States v. Bryant, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 448 F.2d 1182).
Nevertheless, the issue which still must be resolved is whether the relief which should be afforded the defendant for the negligent loss of this evidence should be (1) a dismissal of the indictment (People v. Churba, supra; People ex rel. Hairston v Adult Detention Center,supra); (2) sanctions (United States v. Bryant, supra; People v. Lunney,84 Misc.2d 1090, 378 N.Y.S.2d 559); (3) appropriate remedy devised by court to fit circumstances (People v. Aviles, supra; People v. Hicks, 85 Misc.2d 649, 381 N.Y.S.2d 794); or (4) denial of any relief (United States v. Johnston, 8th Cir., 543 F.2d 55; United States v. Carpenter, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 358, 510 F.2d 738).
Illustrative of the first category is People v. Churba, sup...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lumpkins
... ... See, People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 521, 478 N.Y.S.2d 834, 467 N.E.2d 498; People v. Emmons, 99 Misc.2d 941, 943, 417 N.Y.S.2d ... Page 799 ... 432; cf. People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134. The People would have the opportunity themselves to produce Jackson or prove the falsity of his report. This will restore the "defendant's constitutional right ... ...
-
People v. Harris
...made a request to the police or to the District Attorney's office to preserve any particular items of evidence. (Cf. People v. Emmons, 99 Misc.2d 941, 417 N.Y.S.2d 432.) The defendant next contends that she was deprived of a fair trial when the court received Mrs. Edwards' testimony in rebu......
-
People v. Marks
...his heavy burden, the court dismissed the charges on the ground that "any other sanction would be meaningless."In People v. Emmons, 99 Misc.2d 941, 417 N.Y.S.2d 432 (1979), the prosecution failed to preserve a door, thus undermining the defendant's justification defense; the court instructe......
-
People v. Haupt
...done by the loss of evidence" (People v. Kelly, supra, 62 N.Y.2d at 521, 478 N.Y.S.2d 834, 467 N.E.2d 498; see also, People v. Emmons, 99 Misc.2d 941, 943, 417 N.Y.S.2d 432). In essence, the determination of an appropriate sanction should be made on a case by case basis, and an assessment s......