People v. Wright
| Decision Date | 12 October 1993 |
| Citation | 602 N.Y.S.2d 378,197 A.D.2d 398 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Simon WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and WALLACH, ASCH and RUBIN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard C. Failla, J.), rendered October 15, 1991, which convicted defendant, after jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced him to an indefinite term of imprisonment of from 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a new trial.
Defendant was arrested by New York City Housing Authority police officers on October 12, 1990 for the sale and possession of cocaine. As the officers sat in an unmarked van parked on 121st Street and Second Avenue in Manhattan, they observed a man, later identified as Irving Cruz, approach and speak with defendant. They saw defendant reach into his pants pocket and hand Cruz a vial with a lavender cap in exchange for an assortment of currency. The officers left the van, identified themselves, and arrested Cruz and defendant. One officer recovered one vial with a lavender cap containing a white powder from defendant's pants pocket together with 25 one-dollar bills. The officers also recovered a single vial with a lavender cap, similarly containing a white powder, from Cruz.
Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree but acquitted of the charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He moved to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) on the ground that the People failed to turn over Rosario (People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448) material, specifically a Housing Authority Police Complaint Report.
The prosecutor maintained that he he did not provide the Housing Authority Police Complaint Report to the defense because he was unaware of its existence. Instead, the People furnished a copy of the New York City Police Department Complaint Report to the defense which, the prosecution argued, was the duplicative equivalent of the Housing Authority Police Complaint Report (People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 63, 511 N.Y.S.2d 580, 503 N.E.2d 1011; People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 454, 387 N.Y.S.2d 62, 354 N.E.2d 801). Supreme Court agreed and denied defendant's motion to set aside the verdict.
We note, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thompson
...v. Lopez, 196 A.D.2d 664, 601 N.Y.S.2d 708, revd. on other grounds 83 N.Y.2d 994, 616 N.Y.S.2d 334, 639 N.E.2d 1131; People v. Wright, 197 A.D.2d 398, 602 N.Y.S.2d 378) do not constitute binding precedent for the use of CPL 330.30(1) on this type of motion. In each case, a CPL 330.30(1) mot......
-
People v. Flores
...a dramatic change in the law (see, e.g., People v. Kanefsky, 50 N.Y.2d 162, 428 N.Y.S.2d 453, 405 N.E.2d 1019; People v. Wright, 197 A.D.2d 398, 602 N.Y.S.2d 378; see also, People v. Jackson, supra, 78 N.Y.2d at 658, 578 N.Y.S.2d 483, 585 N.E.2d 795 [Titone, J., dissenting]. Thus, the possi......
- Chattergoon v. New York City Housing Authority