From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Callendar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 1994
207 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 26, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied due process by the loss of a rape kit prior to testing. The failure of the People to preserve evidentiary material of which no more can be said than that it could have been tested and that the result may have helped the defendant does not violate the Brady rule (see, Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57; People v. Taylor, 169 A.D.2d 791). "[U]nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law" (Arizona v. Youngblood, supra, at 58). Here, the defendant failed to establish that the police acted in bad faith. Moreover, to the extent that this evidence may have had any relevance, defense counsel pointed to its absence on cross-examination and summation and attempted to use the absence to the defendant's advantage (see, People v. Taylor, supra). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Callendar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 1994
207 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Callendar

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TREVOR CALLENDAR…

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

Date published: Sep 26, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 667

Citing Cases

People v. Winchell

Defendant contends that police investigators were obligated to preserve evidence which might have been useful…

People v. Williamson

( People v Jardin, supra, at 958.) Other cases cited by the defendant and the People follow the same…