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. RAHEEN M. GAYDEN, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), entered August 1, 2011. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the motion is granted, the judgment is vacated and a new trial is granted.
We note at the outset that the following quote from People v. Fuentes (12 NY3d 259, 263, rearg. denied 13 NY3d 766) is instructive: “[t]he Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions both guarantee a criminal defendant the right to discover favorable evidence in the People's possession material to guilt or punishment ․ [, and i]mpeachment evidence falls within the ambit of a prosecutor's Brady obligation ․ To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material ․ In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for a document, the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” (see People v. Hayes, 17 NY3d 46, 50, cert denied _ U.S. _, 132 S Ct 844).
Here, there is no dispute that defendant satisfied the first element of the Fuentes test inasmuch as the People do not dispute that the prosecution witness at issue was a paid informant and do not contend that evidence of the status of that witness is not favorable to defendant. The People's contention that County Court erred in determining that defendant satisfied the second element of the Fuentes test is beyond the scope of our review under CPL 470.15(1) (see People v. Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 196). We note in any event that “[t]he mandate of Brady extends beyond any particular prosecutor's actual knowledge” (People v. Wright, 86 N.Y.2d 591, 598, citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150), and “ ‘the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police’ “ (id., quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437; see People v. Santorelli, 95 N.Y.2d 412, 421).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 11–01802
Decided: November 15, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)