 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT CONVICTION PENAL LAW CROSS EXAMINATION WITNESSES PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT MEMORANDUM APPELLATE DIVISION CRIMINALPOSSESSION WEAPON DEFENSE COUNSEL MATERIALS CONTENDS JUDGE PROSECUTOR PURSUANT CPL SCOPE STATUTE MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY CORTIJO NY2D CHIEF JUDGE KAYE JUDGES TITONE BELLACOSA SMITH LEVINE CIPARICK WESLEY CONCUR |
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. GERARD GARY OSBORNE, APPELLANT.
91 N.Y.2d 827, 689 N.E.2d 526, 666 N.Y.S.2d 556 (1997).
November 20, 1997
2 No. 238
(97 NY Int. 0198)
Decided November 20, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Elan Gerstmann, for appellant.
David O. Leiwant, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant
appeals from an order of the Appellate Division which affirmed a
judgment of conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree
(Penal Law 120.25), criminalpossession of a weapon in the second
degree (Penal Law 265.03) and criminal possession of a weapon in
the third degree (Penal Law 265.02(4)). During the cross
examination of one of the People's witnesses, it was discovered that
the witness had been previously convicted of disorderly conduct as a
result of an assault upon his wife. The trial prosecutor was unaware
of the conviction. The court granted a brief recess and provided
defense counsel with an opportunity to examine materials concerning
the facts of the incident. Defendant's attorney then pursued the
matter further on cross examination. Defendant contends that he is
entitled to a new trial because the information should have been
provided to defense counsel by the prosecutor pursuant to CPL
240.45(1)(b). We need not determine the scope of the obligation
imposed by the statute on the prosecutor, however, for defendant would
not be entitled to a new trial in any event. Defendant was "given a
meaningful opportunity to use the alleged exculpatory material to
cross examine the People's witnesses" ( see, People v Cortijo, 70
NY2d 868, 870). Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
