People v. Rivas

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Brogdon

    213 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

    Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant the defendant's request for the imposition of sanctions due to the sergeant's failure to preserve his notes, which were Rosario material (see, People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953; People v. Rivas, 184 A.D.2d 794; People v. Smith, 182 A.D.2d 787; People v. Mack, 180 A.D.2d 824; People v. Moss, 176 A.D.2d 826; People v. Gamble, 172 A.D.2d 687; People v. Jackson, 171 A.D.2d 688; People v. Diaz, 169 A.D.2d 776). The trial court also erred by denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony of the undercover officer.

  2. People v. Reeder

    209 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    Assuming arguendo that defendant's initial shot was justified, jury could have concluded that subsequent shots, when victim was falling and then was immobile on the ground, constituted an excessive use of deadly force, and that it was the excessive portion of the force which caused the victim's death

    Although the defendant relied upon an alibi defense at trial, on appeal he contends that the People failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt because the victim was the initial aggressor, and threatened him with what appeared to be a gun. However, since the defendant failed to raise these claims in moving to dismiss the indictment at the close of the People's case, they are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. McLamb, 196 A.D.2d 556; People v. Rivas, 184 A.D.2d 794; People v. Cardona, 136 A.D.2d 556). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defense of justification and establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  3. People v. Joseph

    205 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

    In any event, the information contained on the lost material was only the name of the suspects, and the location and time of the arrests, which information was not disputed by the defendant and which was not relevant to the issue of whether the defendant was the individual who the surveilling officer observed selling cocaine (cf., People v. Rivas, 184 A.D.2d 794). Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction.

  4. People v. Butler

    192 A.D.2d 1126 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    A defendant is entitled to the production of Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, rearg denied 9 N.Y.2d 908, cert denied 368 U.S. 866, rearg denied 14 N.Y.2d 876, 15 N.Y.2d 765) at a pre-trial suppression hearing (see, People v Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610, 615; People v Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86). The destruction of the notes in this case, where identification was a principal issue, was prejudicial (see, People v Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 955) and the hearing court's denial of defense counsel's request to make a record was error. It was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to impose no sanction (see, People v Banch, supra, at 616; People v Wallace, supra; People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940). The fact that the substance of those notes was incorporated into the officer's written report "did not alleviate that prejudice" (People v Wallace, supra, at 955; see also, People v Rivas, 184 A.D.2d 794; People v McMahon, 180 A.D.2d 535; People v Mack, 180 A.D.2d 824). Under the circumstances, defendant is entitled to a new Wade hearing and a new trial. We reject the People's contention that the officer's written report was a duplicative equivalent of the notes.