Summary
In Loper, the defendant claimed a Rosario violation and substantial prejudice by the delayed production of a memo book entry of a police witness containing one of two statements made by the defendant upon his arrest.
Summary of this case from People v. GayleOpinion
Submitted June 13, 2000
September 25, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), rendered January 20, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barbara Lerner of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Ushir Pandit of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was substantially prejudiced by the prosecution's delayed production of Rosario material (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286). The material consisted of part of a page in the memo book belonging to a testifying police officer, and which contained one of two statements made by the defendant upon his arrest. However, as the recorded statement was made by the defendant, it did not constitute Rosario material with respect to the police officer (see, CPL 240.45[a]). In any event, the defendant's two statements were included in the crime report and the notice given to the defendant pursuant to CPL 710.30 prior to trial. They were also the subject of suppression hearings, and the defendant was able to cross-examine the police officer who recorded the statement. Accordingly, the defendant's claim of prejudice lacks merit (see, People v. Bostic, 25 8 A.D.2d 467).