From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1990
166 A.D.2d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

October 2, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.).


Defendant was convicted of three separate robberies of young women committed in the Frederick Douglass Housing Projects located in upper Manhattan during a two-week period in 1985.

Contrary to defendant's assertions, the hearing court did not commit reversible error in denying defendant's request that complainant Sandos and her daughter be produced at the Wade hearing. The evidence raised no substantial issues as to the constitutionality or suggestiveness of the lineups which could not properly be resolved without testimony from the identification witnesses and where the defendant's production request was based upon mere speculation. (See, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327.)

Defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review, by timely objection, his contentions that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's failure to provide Rosario material at trial, that the trial court conducted a material portion of the trial in the defendants absence, and that the prosecutor elicited testimony from the police officers who conducted the lineups which improperly bolstered the complainants' credibility. Were we to consider those contentions, in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm. The record reveals that an officer's pretrial notes of an interview with a defense alibi witness did not directly relate to the subject matter of the officer's direct testimony, and therefore did not constitute Rosario material (CPL 240.45 [a]; People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144). Moreover, the defendant was, in fact, present at all stages of the trial material to the determination of his guilt or innocence (see generally, People v. Cain, 76 N.Y.2d 119). Finally, the police officers' testimony as to the procedures employed during the respective lineups did not improperly bolster the identification testimony of the complainants.

Lastly, we note the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Asch, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Nixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1990
166 A.D.2d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Nixon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GLEN NIXON, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1990

Citations

166 A.D.2d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
564 N.Y.S.2d 289

Citing Cases

Barbour v. People

The Rosario rule requires a prosecutor in a criminal proceeding to turn over to defendant any written or…

People v. Rios

Thus, "that the material is related to the subject matter of the witness's testimony is critical and…