People v. Murray

• Decision Date: 27 May 1988
• Citation: People v. Murray, 529 N.Y.S.2d 628, 140 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robin R. MURRAY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 628

529 N.Y.S.2d 628

140 A.D.2d 949

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robin R. MURRAY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

May 27, 1988.

Before DILLON, P.J., and DENMAN, GREEN, PINE, and BALIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a conviction of felony murder, first degree robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, defendant contends, inter alia, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the People's failure to turn over Brady and discovery material and that he was prejudiced by the admission of photographs of the victim's body and the crime scene. With respect to the Brady and discovery contention, defendant claims that he was denied access to fingerprint reports as well as police reports supporting his alibi (the Bukowski report) or containing information regarding other suspects (the Ligoci reports). The prosecution's evidence made clear that fingerprint testing of the crime scene produced no latent fingerprints matching defendant's and that, consequently, no fingerprint reports were prepared. Defendant produced testimony to the same effect from a fingerprint expert who worked on the investigation. Since defendant used the lack of fingerprint evidence in his case and since no fingerprint reports existed, there was no violation of Brady or statutory discovery rules ( People v. Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868, 870, 523 N.Y.S.2d 463, 517 N.E.2d 1439; CPL 240.20). Defendant's contention that the People withheld exculpatory police reports must also be rejected. In response to defendant's motion for sanctions for the alleged Brady violation, the People demonstrated that the Ligoci reports had been provided to defendant before trial. With respect to the Bukowski report, which concededly was not provided, defendant contends that it contained an exculpatory statement by Marjorie Bukowski, a defense witness. Since Bukowski's statement to police conformed to her alibi testimony on behalf of defendant, and because defendant was already aware of that statement ( see, People v. Fein, 18 N.Y.2d 162, 170, 272 N.Y.S.2d 753, 219 N.E.2d 274, appeal dismissed and cert. denied 385 U.S. 649, 87 S.Ct. 766, 17 L.Ed.2d 668), there was no Brady violation. To the extent that defendant was not made aware of the statement of Marty Ellis, contained in the Bukowski report, in which Ellis denied that he was with defendant on the night of the robbery, that statement was not exculpatory and the People had no obligation to reveal it ( see, People v. Trudo, 88 A.D.2d 1091, 1092-1093, 453 N.Y.S.2d 54).

The admission of the photographs was not error. The determination whether evidence is relevant is entrusted to the discretion of the...