From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Borders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1990
163 A.D.2d 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 13, 1990

Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant has not shown any prejudice resulting from the failure of the police to follow the written notice requirements of Penal Law § 450.10 (1) prior to releasing the stolen property to its owners. Noncompliance alone is insufficient to require reversal (see, Penal Law § 450.10) particularly where, as here, defendant did not request permission to examine the property prior to trial (see, People v. Welsh, 124 A.D.2d 301, 304) and did not suffer prejudice or establish that the statutory violation was intentional or in bad faith (see, People v. Angelo, 93 A.D.2d 264, 268). The radio and dictaphone were properly received in evidence because these items were not fungible and were identified at trial by serial numbers (see, People v. Washington, 96 A.D.2d 996, 997). Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct in summation were not preserved for review and do not require reversal in any event. On this record defendant's sentence is not excessive.


Summaries of

People v. Borders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1990
163 A.D.2d 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Borders

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES BORDERS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 13, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
558 N.Y.S.2d 767

Citing Cases

People v. Taylor

Defendant's challenge to the return of vouchered money prior to trial without notice to defendant in…

People v. Pearsall

While "the degree of prosecutorial fault . . . may be considered, . . . the overriding concern must be to…