Opinion
03-16-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dean MARTIN, appellant.
Anthony John Messina, Katonah, N.Y., for appellant. James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Anthony John Messina, Katonah, N.Y., for appellant.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered January 24, 2012, convicting him of forgery in the second degree (eight counts), falsifying business records in the first degree (eleven counts), forcible touching, aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree (three counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was a high school computer science teacher and also the coordinator of the school's computer system in which the students' grades, examination scores, and attendance records were entered. The defendant altered the grades, New York State Regents examination scores, and attendance records of several students while he cultivated personal relationships with those students and subjected them to inappropriate physical contact. One student reported the defendant's conduct to the school psychologist, who was interviewed by the police following the defendant's arrest.
The defendant argues that by failing to call the school psychologist as a witness at trial, the People committed a Brady violation (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215). 1 “Brady does not require that a prosecutor ‘supply a defendant with evidence when the defendant knew of, or should reasonably have known of, the evidence and its exculpatory nature’ ” (People v. McClain, 53 A.D.3d 556, 556–557, 861 N.Y.S.2d 764, quoting People v. Doshi, 93 N.Y.2d 499, 506, 693 N.Y.S.2d 87, 715 N.E.2d 113). Evidence which is known to the defendant, or which is in his possession, is not Brady material (see People v. Ahmed, 244 A.D.2d 415, 664 N.Y.S.2d 317; People v. Rodriguez, 223 A.D.2d 605, 606, 637 N.Y.S.2d 171; People v. LaRocca, 172 A.D.2d 628, 629, 568 N.Y.S.2d 431).
Here, the school psychologist's statements to the police were made available to the defendant in the police report prior to trial. In addition, the defense had access to the school psychologist, and called him as a witness at trial. The defendant's contention that the People committed a Brady violation is therefore without merit (see People v. Rodriguez, 223 A.D.2d at 606, 637 N.Y.S.2d 171). Moreover, the County Court did not improperly limit the defendant's examination of the school psychologist (see People v. Keys, 18 A.D.3d 780, 781, 794 N.Y.S.2d 916).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).