Summary
holding that arrest photograph which "confirmed the complainant's testimony that the robber was wearing a dark grey jacket at the time of attack," was admissible
Summary of this case from Dey v. ScullyOpinion
June 12, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly ruled that the defendant's arrest photograph was admissible on redirect examination in response to the defendant's lengthy inquiry into the complaining witness's recall of the robber's identifying characteristics. The photograph confirmed the complainant's testimony that the robber was wearing a dark grey jacket at the time of the attack (see, People v. Dent, 183 A.D.2d 723; People v. Santana, 162 A.D.2d 191; People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397).
The failure of the complaining witness to inform the detective in an unrelated criminal investigation that the defendant, who he picked out of a lineup and whose photograph he picked out of a photo array, had also been his assailant in the present crime, did not constitute exculpatory evidence, since there is no indication that the complainant was ever questioned concerning the instant offense. Therefore, evidence of the "fact" in question was not Brady material which the People were obliged to turn over to the defense.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.