Summary
In People v Andino (244 AD2d 194 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 888), the People did not turn over the scratch copy of the investigating officer's complaint report.
Summary of this case from People v. BortolisOpinion
November 13, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.).
The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to sanction the People for their delay in producing two Rosario items and their failure to produce another. Concerning the late production of the ballistics request form, the defense abandoned its plan to use that document on further cross-examination. The defense was not prejudiced by the late production of certain medical records, since counsel was provided with ample time to review them prior to cross-examination of the medical expert. We conclude that no prejudice resulted from the destruction, pursuant to routine procedures, of the scratch copy of the investigating officer's complaint report (see, People v Joseph, 86 N.Y.2d 565, 570-572).
The court's refusal to give an expanded identification charge was proper. The evidence did not present a close identification question, and the court's charge on the elements of the crime and the People's burden of proof sufficiently covered the subject (see, People v. Knight, 87 N.Y.2d 873).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.