People v. Harvall
Opinion of the Court
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered December 16, 1999, convicting
Ordered that the judgment and the amended sentence are affirmed.
We reject the defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial because the People failed to timely produce Brady material (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83). The material was turnéd over during the pre-trial hearing and before jury selection, and the defendant was able to use it effectively during trial (see, People v White, 178 AD2d 674, 675; People v Rodriguez, 281 AD2d 644). There is no basis for concluding that an earlier disclosure would have affected the outcome of the trial (see, People v Rodriguez, supra). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.