Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mario SILVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered November 18, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
Although defendant's defense was that the police fabricated the charges against him for the purpose of causing his vehicle to be forfeited, the price a Brooklyn detective who was uninvolved in the case paid to purchase defendant's vehicle from a car dealership was not exculpatory material subject to disclosure under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 [1963]. Furthermore, the court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from eliciting that information on cross-examination (see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 [1986] ). There was no evidence connecting the Brooklyn and Bronx narcotics detectives in this case, and the Brooklyn detective testified that he bought the vehicle with no knowledge of its origin. Thus, the price of the forfeited vehicle was irrelevant to establish a motive on the part of the Bronx detectives to arrest defendant falsely. Defendant did not submit any proof in support of his theory of a connection between the detectives, despite the opportunity to do so. Thus, the court properly excluded defendant's question as speculative and without any factual basis (see e.g. People v. Barney, 277 A.D.2d 460, 715 N.Y.S.2d 758 [2000], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 825, 729 N.Y.S.2d 445, 754 N.E.2d 205 [2001] ). Defendant's other arguments are unpreserved and without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 26, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)