| People v Wright |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03305 [50 AD3d 429] |
| April 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert Wright, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Jennifer Marinaccio of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William I. Mogulescu, J., on speedy trial motion;Michael A. Gross, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 3, 2002, convicting defendant ofassault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 16 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's speedy trial motion. The dispositive issue is whetherthe People's declarations of readiness were rendered illusory by the undisputed fact that, on thedates in question, they were not yet in possession of forensic evidence and medical records thatthey ultimately introduced at trial. We find no basis for finding these unequivocal announcementsof present readiness to be illusory. There is nothing in CPL 30.30 to preclude the People fromdeclaring their present readiness, but still gathering additional evidence to strengthen their case.Moreover, "neither statute nor case law requires that the People have the ability to produce theirwitnesses instantaneously in order for a statement of readiness to be valid." (People vDushain, 247 AD2d 234, 236 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 1007 [1998].) Here, thePeople could have tried this case on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone, and the wisdom ofdoing so is irrelevant for speedy trial purposes. While defendant asserts that the People had aduty under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]) to ascertain whether forensic testsperformed by the police produced any exculpatory evidence, this is analogous to a claim that thePeople answered ready without turning over discoverable material. However, discovery failureshave no bearing on the People's readiness (People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529, 543[1985]). Accordingly, no additional time should be charged to the People based on defendant'sclaim that certain declarations of readiness were illusory. While defendant claims that twoadditional periods should have been charged to the People, those periods, when added to the 141days that the court charged, would not entitle defendant to dismissal of the indictment. In anyevent, we have considered and rejected defendant's claims relating to those two periods.
The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation did not deprive defendant of a fairtrial. Defendant's summation suggested that there had been collusion among prosecutionwitnesses and collective tailoring of testimony, and the prosecutor made a fair response to thatargument (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976[1998]). We do [*2]not find that the prosecutor mischaracterizeddefendant's defense or suggested that the jury could only reach a not guilty verdict if it found anactual conspiracy among witnesses. Defendant's remaining challenges to the summation areunpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding,we find no pattern of inflammatory remarks, and that, to the extent anything in the summationcould be viewed as a misstatement of law, the court's charge was sufficient to prevent anyprejudice.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom,Williams and Acosta, JJ.