 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EVIDENCE FRACTURE DEFENDANT MATERIALS BRAIN TISSUE APPELLATE DIVISION PROSECUTOR BONE DEATH OPINION REPRESENTATIONS DISCOVERY DEFENSE COURT NY2D RESPONDENT MOTION CPL ALLEGES JURY PATHOLOGISTS ACCIDENT MEDICAL EXPERTS HEAD FRONTAL BONE ACCORDANCE EXCULPATORY AUTOPSY CONTENDS |
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. BLAINE P. BRYCE, APPELLANT.
88 N.Y.2d 124, 666 N.E.2d 221, 643 N.Y.S.2d 516 (1996).
May 7, 1996
3 No. 113(1996 NY Int. 111)
Decided May 7, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Charles J. Wilcox, for Appellant.
John E. Maney, for Respondent.
SIMONS, J.:
Defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Division which
denied without a hearing his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to set
aside a judgment convicting him of murder in the second degree. He
alleged several grounds for relief but we find merit only in his
allegation that the People failed to preserve and deliver Brady
material to him before trial after assuring him they would do so.
Accordingly, we remit for a hearing to determine if the People made
such representations, whether the material allegedly withheld was
exculpatory and if so, whether there is a reasonable probability that
the verdict would have been changed had the jury heard it.
Defendant has been convicted after a jury trial of the 1988 murder of
his seven-week-old son under circumstances evincing a depraved
indifference to human life (Penal Law § 125.25(2)). The death
certificate assigned the cause of death to a massive brain hemorrhage
due to a fractured skull. The coroner's pathologists filed two autopsy
reports and a third report was filed by a pathologist from the State
Police forensic team who had examined the skull and brain tissue of
the victim. Though the reports differed somewhat, their findings were
generally consistent with the cause of death stated on the death
certificate.
It was the theory of the prosecution that defendant, while caring for
his son, inflicted serious injuries on him causing his death.
Defendant, on the other hand, contended the death was accidental. He
admitted that he had dropped the infant to the floor while he was
caring for him and that he had subsequently shaken him in the belief
that the child was choking, but he contended that he did not
intentionally or recklessly injure him.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
