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, etc., Respondent, v. Rafael BOBADILLA, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered October 1, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The People were properly sanctioned for their delay in turning over the complainant's Grand Jury testimony by permitting the defendant to recall that witness for further cross-examination without any redirect examination (see People v. Hunt, 244 A.D.2d 956, 665 N.Y.S.2d 170; see also, People v. Turcios-Umana, 153 A.D.2d 707, 544 N.Y.S.2d 682). Dismissal was not warranted, since the delay did not substantially prejudice the defendant (see People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134; People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 511 N.Y.S.2d 580, 503 N.E.2d 1011; People v. Leon, 186 A.D.2d 587, 588 N.Y.S.2d 384).
The defendant further contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed the jury to continue to deliberate while a readback was being prepared in response to a jury note. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as the defendant raised no objection to the procedure used by the court (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509, 626 N.Y.S.2d 729, 650 N.E.2d 387). In any event, reversal is not warranted. While awaiting the readback, the jury sent out the second note stating that it had reached a verdict. Before taking the verdict, the court gave the jury the opportunity to hear the requested testimony. By declining the court's offer, the jury foreperson indicated that the jurors had resolved the factual dispute by themselves and no longer needed to hear that testimony (see People v. Sanders, 227 A.D.2d 506, 643 N.Y.S.2d 365; People v. Chandler, 110 A.D.2d 970, 487 N.Y.S.2d 887).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: October 26, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)