People v. Wells
| Decision Date | 07 November 1988 |
| Citation | 144 A.D.2d 400,533 N.Y.S.2d 936 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Levester WELLS, Appellant. |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Kevin Casey and Mitchel J. Briskey, of counsel), for appellant.
Levester Wells, pro se.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Miriam R. Best and Peter L. Brightbill, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, EIBER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.), rendered May 27, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged in counts two and five of the indictment with criminal possession of cocaine with the intent to sell it. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly admitted evidence of currency found on the defendant's person at the time of his arrest, since that testimony was relevant to the crimes charged (see, People v. Jones, 138 A.D.2d 405, 525 N.Y.S.2d 689, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1028, 530 N.Y.S.2d 563, 526 N.E.2d 56).
We note that the appropriate sanction to be imposed due to the People's failure to preserve discoverable material pursuant to CPL 240.20 rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 521, 478 N.Y.S.2d 834, 467 N.E.2d 498; People v. Haupt, 128 A.D.2d 172, 515 N.Y.S.2d 537 affd. 71 N.Y.2d 929, 528 N.Y.S.2d 808, 524 N.E.2d 129). Under the circumstances of this case, including the finding of no bad faith on the part of the People, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in giving an adverse inference charge as to certain discoverable material not preserved by the People rather than precluding all testimony as to these items, as requested by the defendant. Furthermore, the court did not err in failing to give an adverse inference charge as to the failure of the police to preserve the defendant's hat.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the court's interested witness charge was balanced and did not deprive him of a fair trial. The court's charge properly permitted, but did not direct, the jury to find that the defendant's brother, who had testified on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bailey
...( see, People v. Whitfield, 144 A.D.2d 915, 534 N.Y.S.2d 25; cf., People v. Wells, 159 A.D.2d 799, 552 N.Y.S.2d 688; People v. Wells, 144 A.D.2d 400, 533 N.Y.S.2d 936, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 861, 537 N.Y.S.2d 507, 534 N.E.2d 345). Such proof is excluded because the potential prejudicial effec......
-
People v. Brown
...possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell (see, People v. Rivera, 177 A.D.2d 662, 576 N.Y.S.2d 364; People v. Wells, 144 A.D.2d 400, 533 N.Y.S.2d 936; People v. Jones, 138 A.D.2d 405, 525 N.Y.S.2d 689). Evidence of uncharged crimes may be received where, as here, it helps......
-
People v. McDonald
...62 N.Y.2d 516, 520-21, 478 N.Y.S.2d 834, 467 N.E.2d 498; People v. Vasquez, 141 A.D.2d 880, 881-882, 530 N.Y.S.2d 159; People v. Wells, 144 A.D.2d 400, 533 N.Y.S.2d 936). The court properly exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling, which only permitted inquiry into the defendant's pr......
-
People v. Glover
...People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Parsons, 150 A.D.2d 614, 541 N.Y.S.2d 482; People v. Wells, 144 A.D.2d 400, 533 N.Y.S.2d 936). Although the court should have instructed the jury on the limited purpose of such evidence, the failure to do so was harm......