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. Willie MADDIX, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered August 22, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The People could not produce the audiotape of an interview with an eyewitness who testified at trial. If the People fail to exercise due care in preserving Rosario material, and the defendant is prejudiced thereby, the trial court must impose an appropriate sanction (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134). “The determination of what [sanction] is appropriate is committed to the trial court's sound discretion, and while the degree of prosecutorial fault may be considered, the court's attention should focus primarily on the overriding need to eliminate prejudice to the defendant” (see, People v. Martinez, supra, at 940, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134). The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in giving an adverse inference charge as the sanction (see, People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 563 N.Y.S.2d 722, 565 N.E.2d 471; People v. Walker, 235 A.D.2d 510, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1004). The adverse inference charge was issued twice, once immediately after the jury was first notified of the lost tape, and again during jury instructions. Moreover, any prejudice was eliminated by the offering of other Rosario material, including the handwritten and typed copies of the interviewer's scratch notes of the interview and a transcript of the first interview (see, People v. Earl, 168 A.D.2d 510, 562 N.Y.S.2d 751; People v. Frazier, 233 A.D.2d 896, 649 N.Y.S.2d 542). Furthermore, the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the interviewer about the loss (see, People v. Campbell, 176 A.D.2d 814, 575 N.Y.S.2d 138).
The defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to inform him, prior to summations, that it would not submit the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree to the jury (see, CPL 300.10 [4] ). Initially, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to object to the omission of the charge (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Cromwell, 150 A.D.2d 715, 542 N.Y.S.2d 15). In any event, any error is harmless (see, People v. Miller, 70 N.Y.2d 903, 524 N.Y.S.2d 386, 519 N.E.2d 297; see also, People v. Gagliardo, 222 A.D.2d 520, 635 N.Y.S.2d 542; People v. Kloska, 191 A.D.2d 587, 595 N.Y.S.2d 78).
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: November 10, 1997
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)