People v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 04 October 2016
• Citation: 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06456,143 A.D.3d 430,38 N.Y.S.3d 192
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory THOMPSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

143 A.D.3d 430

38 N.Y.S.3d 192

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06456

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Gregory THOMPSON, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Oct. 4, 2016.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jody Ratner of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Lori Farrington of counsel), for respondent.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Lieb, J.), rendered February 28, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 23 years, affirmed.

The court properly declined to impose any sanction for the loss, due to the flooding of a police storage facility in Hurricane Sandy, of a knife that defendant claims to be exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The loss of evidence as the result of a natural disaster cannot be attributed to the People (People v. Daly, 140 A.D.3d 593, 594, 33 N.Y.S.3d 266 [1st Dept.2016] ; People v. Austin, 134 A.D.3d 559, 23 N.Y.S.3d 17 [1st Dept.2015], lv. granted 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 63709[U], 2016 WL 485590 ). In any event, defendant has not established that the knife, as a piece of physical evidence, was exculpatory. Although there was an issue as to whether this knife, which was found in defendant's room, could have caused any of the numerous stab wounds sustained by the victim, photographs of the knife, which clearly demonstrated its dimensions, were admitted at trial, and defendant has not shown that the knife itself would have had any additional value. Moreover, there was overwhelming evidence of guilt, including a detailed confession, as well as DNA evidence showing that the knife at issue was at least one of the weapons used against the victim, and there is no reasonable possibility that the physical availability of the knife at trial would have resulted in a more favorable verdict.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that he was entitled to a mistrial or the striking of certain testimony based on his detrimental reliance on the prosecutor's pretrial disclosure, which proved inaccurate, that the medical examiner's testimony would be entirely exculpatory on the issue of whether any of the wounds were compatible with the knife recovered from defendant's room. Although defendant took issue with the medical examiner's testimony on other specific grounds, he did not raise the particular ground asserted here. We decline to review defendant's unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that although the prosecutor erred in belatedly disclosing that the medical examiner's testimony would be...