People v. Roy

• Decision Date: 15 July 1993
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edmond J. ROY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 363

600 N.Y.S.2d 363

195 A.D.2d 761

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edmond J. ROY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

July 15, 1993.

Robert M. O'Leary (Kenneth S. Kagan, of counsel), Binghamton, for appellant.

Gerald F. Mollen, Dist. Atty. (Marjorie M. Lyons, of counsel), Binghamton, for respondent.

Before WEISS, P.J., and LEVINE, MERCURE, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ.

WEISS, Presiding Justice.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered November 9, 1990, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of attempted burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered November 9, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of falsely reporting an incident in the first degree.

Defendant was indicted for, and tried upon, charges of burglary and criminal mischief arising out of his unlawful entry into the Le Roy Package Store in the City of Binghamton, Broome County, at about 5:00 A.M. on June 13, 1990. ¹ Defendant is alleged to have thrown two bricks at the store window and been in possession of a large stick, ostensibly for use in clearing the broken glass to facilitate access. A jury found defendant guilty of attempted burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years. His postverdict motion to dismiss the indictment because the prosecution failed to preserve potentially exculpatory material was denied. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to falsely reporting an incident in the first degree and a negotiated concurrent sentence of 1 1/2 to 3 years was imposed.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether County Court erred in its denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because the police had destroyed evidence consisting of the two bricks and the stick found in defendant's possession at the scene of the crimes. Concededly, the prosecution is required, upon demand, to disclose and make available for inspection, photographing, copying or testing property obtained from a defendant (CPL 240.20[1][f]. Here, the evidence officer of the Binghamton Police Department testified that after he photographed, weighed and measured the bricks and the stick, and before defendant had an opportunity to examine them, they were destroyed because of the lack of storage space in police headquarters. Defendant's objection to the admission of the photos as evidence was overruled. His request for adverse jury instructions was granted and included within the charge to the jury.

It cannot be gainsaid that not only do the People have the duty to disclose potentially exculpatory material to a defendant (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215), but in addition when discoverable evidence in possession of the prosecution is lost, destroyed or otherwise unavailable to a defendant, that unless the People sustain a...