Opinion
April 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bernard J. Fried, J.).
We reject defendant's claim that numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct, throughout the prosecution of his case, denied him a fair trial or an opportunity to establish a meaningful defense. First, we note that defendant's guilt of each of the crimes of which he was convicted was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon the testimony of the shooting victims, who, upon being afforded the benefits of a witness protection program, eventually stepped forward and identified defendant as the shooter. (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621.)
The prosecutor committed no error in failing to produce the grand jury testimony of one of the victim's friends who was present at the scene of the shooting. His grand jury testimony lacked exculpatory value, and disclosure was not warranted pursuant to Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83), since it did not create a reasonable doubt which did not otherwise exist. (People v. Velez, 118 A.D.2d 116, 118-119.) Furthermore, disclosure was not warranted pursuant to People v. Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286), since the witness was not a prosecution trial witness. (People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 62.)
Defendant's claim that the prosecutor used grand jury proceedings to intimidate a defense witness and counsel is conclusory and wholly unsubstantiated. Nor has defendant demonstrated that counsel rendered less than "meaningful representation". (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147.)
Defendant has failed to establish that the suppression court erred in denying his motion to suppress inculpatory statements made by him to police officers. The statements were spontaneous (People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, cert denied 472 U.S. 1007). We also reject defendant's conclusory claim that complainants should have been compelled to testify at the Wade hearing. (See, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 334, cert denied ___ US ___, 112 L Ed 2d 70.) Last, we note that the imposition of consecutive sentences on defendant's convictions of assault in the first degree was proper. (Cf., Penal Law § 70.25; People v Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839, 842-843.)
We have examined defendant's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.