Summary
In People v Mikel (303 AD2d 1031), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, refused to suppress a map drawn by the defendant of the crime scenes involved, concluding that the People's CPL 710.30 notice was sufficient to apprise the defendant that they would be introducing the particular evidence (i.e., the map) because the CPL 710.30 notice contained "the sum and substance" of what the particular evidence indicated (see also People v Morris, 248 AD2d 169; People v Figueras, 199 AD2d 409).
Summary of this case from People v. FrancoOpinion
KA 01-01273
March 21, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Mark, J.), entered March 16, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (two counts).
EDWARD J. NOWAK, Public Defender, ROCHESTER (ELIZABETH CLARKE Of Counsel), For Defendant-appellant.
HOWARD R. RELIN, District Attorney, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL J. NOLAN Of Counsel), For Plaintiff-respondent.
PRESENT: WISNER, J.P., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts each of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25, [3]) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [5]), 11 counts of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [1], [2], [4]) and four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03). Defendant moved to suppress a map that he drew of the crime scenes on the ground that it was not included in the CPL 710.30 notice. We reject the contention that Supreme Court erred in denying that motion. The motion by defendant to suppress all of his statements, including nonverbal statements, "render[ed] any alleged deficiency in the CPL 710.30 notice irrelevant" (People v. Neal, 262 A.D.2d 1002, 1003, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1023; see People v. Ginty, 299 A.D.2d 922; People v. Laws, 286 A.D.2d 991, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 706; People v. Johnson, 280 A.D.2d 613, 614). In any event, the People's notice of intention to introduce statements by defendant at trial "was sufficient under CPL 710.30 to apprise the defendant that they would be introducing [the map] * * * since the statements contained the sum and substance of what the map indicated" (People v. Springer, 221 A.D.2d 386, 386, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 925).