People v. Wright

• Citation: 658 N.E.2d 1009,635 N.Y.S.2d 136,86 N.Y.2d 591
• Parties: , 658 N.E.2d 1009 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vicki-Crystal A. WRIGHT, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1995
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 136

635 N.Y.S.2d 136

86 N.Y.2d 591, 658 N.E.2d 1009

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vicki-Crystal A. WRIGHT, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 31, 1995.

[86 N.Y.2d 592] Santaniello, Posnik & Basile, P.C. (Edward J. Partyka, of the Massachusetts Bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant.

[86 N.Y.2d 593] Sol Greenberg, District Attorney of Albany County, Albany (Risa L. Viglucci, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

KAYE, Chief Judge.

This case presents the question whether the People's failure to inform the defendant that the complainant had previously operated as an informant for the local police department violated defendant's right to due process. We conclude that the People were required to disclose this information pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 and therefore reverse defendant's conviction.

Defendant met Fred Washington at the Bottom's Up bar in Albany. They talked and had several drinks before going to defendant's apartment. From this point forward, their testimony differed markedly.

According to Washington, he and defendant had been hugging, kissing and holding hands at the bar. Upon arriving at her apartment, they entered defendant's bedroom, where Washington undressed in her presence and placed his clothing on the floor next to the bed. Washington sat on the bed, and defendant left the bedroom. She returned wielding a knife, shouted at him, lacerated his penis and stabbed him in the chest. Washington then picked up his clothing, dressed and, after throwing a flower pot at the bedroom door, left the apartment with a radio. He flagged down a car and asked the driver to take him home. The driver, however, drove Washington to the hospital, over his protestations.

According to defendant, as she prepared to leave the bar she noticed that her jacket was missing. Washington told her that his friend had it and offered to call him, but not from the bar. Defendant agreed to let him call from her apartment. At her apartment, she showed Washington the phone in the living room, and she went to the bedroom to hide her purse. While she was in the bedroom Washington entered, naked. As he approached her, Washington told defendant, "I want to * * * you." Fearing rape, defendant grabbed a knife she kept on her dresser and stabbed him in the groin and chest. She forced Washington out of the bedroom and called 911.

Police Officer Douglas Walczak stated in his police report that he recovered a pair of boxer shorts, a shoe and a hat from defendant's apartment that night, outside the bedroom. At trial, however, Walczak testified that the shoe and boxer shorts were found inside the bedroom, and that the hat was discovered at the threshold to the bedroom. Detective Sean Keane recorded in his police report that, on the evening of the incident, Washington had stated that he had been attacked by defendant as he entered her bedroom without any clothes. At trial, although Keane acknowledged the contents of his report, he was unable to recall whether Washington had in fact made that statement. During deliberations, the jury asked to hear Walczak's testimony regarding where he found Washington's clothing. Defendant was acquitted of the first-degree assault counts and convicted of one count of second-degree assault.

Defendant subsequently filed a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. In his affirmation, her new counsel alleged that, following defendant's conviction, he learned that Washington was an informant for the Albany Police Department. Defendant argued that the People's failure to disclose this information to the defense required a new trial on both newly discovered evidence grounds and Brady grounds. The People did not dispute defendant's factual allegation that Washington had acted as an informant for the Albany Police Department on prior occasions. Instead, they responded that Washington was not an informant "in this case," and that the trial prosecutor had no personal knowledge of prior instances in which Washington provided information to the police.

The motion court summarily denied defendant's motion, holding that Washington's status as a police informant did not constitute newly discovered evidence. Defendant appealed from both the denial of her CPL 440.10 motion and the judgment of conviction, and the Appellate Division affirmed. Neither the motion court nor the Appellate Division addressed whether Washington's history as a police informant constituted Brady material. Because we conclude it does, we now reverse.

In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution has an affirmative duty to disclose to the defense evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the defense and material to guilt or punishment. New York has long recognized this prosecutorial duty (see, e.g., People v. Savvides, 1 N.Y.2d 554, 154 N.Y.S.2d 885, 136 N.E.2d 853), and the failure to disclose Brady material violates a defendant's constitutional right to due process.

As a preliminary matter, defendant sufficiently apprised the motion court of the nature of her Brady claim by urging that Washington's newly discovered status as a police informant was exculpatory material that should have been disclosed in response to her pretrial request for all Brady and impeachment material, citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 and United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481. Having failed to dispute defendant's factual allegation that Washington operated as a police informant, the People have impliedly conceded the truthfulness of that allegation (see, e.g., People v. Ciaccio, 47 N.Y.2d 431, 438, 418 N.Y.S.2d 371, 391 N.E.2d 1347; see also, People v. Gruden, 42 N.Y.2d 214, 216, 397 N.Y.S.2d 704, 366 N.E.2d 794 ["(n)ormally what is not disputed is deemed to be conceded"]. Consequently, if Washington's status as a police informant constituted Brady material, the trial court was obligated to grant defendant's CPL 440.10 motion (see, CPL 440.30[3]; People v. Gruden, supra, at 215-216, 397 N.Y.S.2d 704, 366 N.E.2d 794).

Manifestly, Washington's status as a police informant was evidence favorable to the defense here. Specifically, the reports prepared by Detective Keane and Officer Walczak confirmed defendant's claim that Washington was already undressed when he entered her bedroom. Nevertheless, at trial both officers supported Washington's version of events--Walczak contradicted his report and testified that Washington's boxer shorts and shoe were discovered inside defendant's bedroom, and Keane could no longer recall whether Washington had stated that he entered defendant's bedroom without any clothing. Had defendant been armed with the knowledge that Washington was an informant for the same police department that employed Keane and Walczak, she could have presented the jury with a motive for them to favor Washington. Like evidence tending to affect credibility, evidence establishing such a motive for prosecution witnesses to corroborate the complainant falls within the ambit of the Brady rule (see, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S....