PEOPLE v. HARRIS (2006)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1] ) and two counts of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15[1], [2] ).   Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the People violated their duty under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 to disclose exculpatory material obtained by an investigator for the Monroe County District Attorney.  “The subject material was Brady material because it affected the credibility of a key prosecution witness, and [the] failure to disclose it constituted a Brady violation” (People v. Monroe, 17 A.D.3d 863, 864, 793 N.Y.S.2d 276;  see People v. Baxley, 84 N.Y.2d 208, 213, 616 N.Y.S.2d 7, 639 N.E.2d 746, rearg. dismissed 86 N.Y.2d 886, 635 N.Y.S.2d 952, 659 N.E.2d 775;  People v. Valentin, 1 A.D.3d 982, 767 N.Y.S.2d 343, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 602, 776 N.Y.S.2d 233, 808 N.E.2d 369).   Reversal of defendant's judgment of conviction is required, moreover, because defendant made a specific request for such material and “there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that, had that material been disclosed, the result would have been different” (People v. Bond, 95 N.Y.2d 840, 843, 713 N.Y.S.2d 514, 735 N.E.2d 1279, citing People v. Vilardi, 76 N.Y.2d 67, 77, 556 N.Y.S.2d 518, 555 N.E.2d 915).

We reject the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   In view of our decision, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law, the posttrial motion is granted, the verdict is set aside and a new trial is granted.

MEMORANDUM: