THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RONALD COLAVITO, APPELLANT.
87 N.Y.2d 423, 663 N.E.2d 308, 639 N.Y.S.2d 996 (1996).
February 8, 1996
2 No. 32(1996 NY Int 10)
Decided February 8, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Andrea D. Pawliczek, for Appellant.
Gerald D. D'Amelia, Jr., for Respondent.
BELLACOSA, J.:
This appeal raises a question concerning the People's obligation to
seek out and obtain before trial evidence not in their possession or
control. In particular in this case, the two money orders now at issue
were not otherwise subject to discovery under CPL article 240. They
were, however, within the scope of the People's voluntary disclosure
agreement to provide to the defense. The People acquired the two money
orders during trial and immediately turned them over to defense
counsel.
We conclude that the money orders were properly admitted as evidence
in the People's case-in-chief, because (1) they were not discoverable
as a matter of right pre-trial; (2) disclosure during trial did not
violate the voluntary arrangement; (3) there was no bad faith on the
part of the prosecutor; and (4) no undue prejudice as a matter of law
infected the trial court's discretionary ruling. The order of the
Appellate Division upholding the conviction, now before us by leave to
appeal granted by a Judge of this Court, should therefore be affirmed.
Defendant was an Orange County Deputy Sheriff, assigned as the
Commissary Officer for the Orange County Correctional Facility. His
responsibilities included administering the Commissary Bank Account,
into which funds were deposited on behalf of inmates for use in
purchasing personal items. During defendant's tenure, he drew at least
38 checks on that account, which were payable to the local post office
for the purchase of money orders. An audit revealed numerous
irregularities and irreconciliations with respect to the checks and
the account. Although the checks were made payable on their face to
"Postmaster," the defendant was proved to have altered the check stub
records, maintained at the Correctional Facility, to reflect different
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RONALD COLAVITO, APPELLANT.
This appeal raises a question concerning the People's obligation to seek out and obtain
the two money orders now at issue were not otherwise subject to discovery under CPL article
They were, however, within the scope of the People's voluntary disclosure agreement to
The People acquired the two money orders during trial and immediately turned them over to
We conclude that the money orders were properly admitted as evidence in the People's
The order of the Appellate Division upholding the conviction, now before us by leave to
His responsibilities included administering the Commissary Bank Account, into which funds
Although the checks were made payable on their face to "Postmaster," the defendant was proved
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of grand larceny in the third degree, falsifying
The actual money orders that defendant was alleged to have purchased with the unauthorized
While some disagreement persists as to the availability, location and effort to find and
the prosecutor announced that two of the money orders had been located and would be offered
The two money orders were particularly significant because they were payable to an attorney
Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the money orders, arguing that they would
The District Attorney countered that his office had decided to pursue the money orders around
Instead, the claim is one of surprise, prejudice and error as a matter of law derived from
More recently, in addition to overarching imperatives premised on constitutional rights and
we turn to the standard discovery rubrics provided by the Criminal Procedure Law.
Moreover, in the sound exercise of responsible discretion, the trial court may order early
Defendant would raise the People's obligation a step or two higher than the voluntary
|
