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. Edmond BOSTIC, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered December 6, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested in an apartment shortly after someone observed an individual entering the apartment through a window next to the fire escape at approximately 2:30 A.M. The police also recovered personal property belonging to the owner of the apartment in a bag on the fire escape. The defendant testified that an acquaintance let him into the apartment. He contended that if the police had searched the apartment following his arrest, they would have discovered his acquaintance. Three police officers testified that they searched the apartment and found the defendant in a back room, hiding under some clothes. The defendant was charged, inter alia, with burglary in the second degree.
The defendant claims that the judgment should be reversed on the ground that the People's delayed disclosure of two memo book entries constituted a Rosario violation. During cross examination of the People's second witness, a police sergeant, the defendant discovered that the People had not provided the sergeant's memo book. After a brief delay, the People provided the defendant with copies of relevant entries from the sergeant's memo book and the court adjourned the trial overnight. The Rosario material consisted of two memo book entries pertaining to the defendant's arrest. The first stated that it was “2:45”, and the street address of the building where the burglary occurred. The second entry stated, “0300, one under by Jackson 62A”. Jackson was the arresting officer.
Under the circumstances, the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by the People's delayed disclosure (see, People v. Best, 186 A.D.2d 141, 587 N.Y.S.2d 429; cf., People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610, 593 N.Y.S.2d 491, 608 N.E.2d 1069). The defendant had just begun cross-examining the police sergeant and had adequate opportunity to prepare for further cross examination. Additionally, the terse entries contained in the memo book did not disclose any new information and thus could not have affected the defendant's opening statement or cross-examination of the People's first witness.
The defendant received meaningful representation from his defense counsel (see, People v. Keels, 254 A.D.2d 372, 678 N.Y.S.2d 531).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, without merit (see, People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903, 653 N.Y.S.2d 256, 675 N.E.2d 1208; People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 469 N.Y.S.2d 693, 457 N.E.2d 800; People v. Hughes, 228 A.D.2d 618, 645 N.Y.S.2d 493; People v. Vincent, 226 A.D.2d 297, 642 N.Y.S.2d 217; People v. Lipscomb, 187 A.D.2d 614, 589 N.Y.S.2d 926; People v. Rosa, 186 A.D.2d 494, 589 N.Y.S.2d 413).
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: February 01, 1999
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)