Court Opinion

ID: 5761149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 17:14:44.854332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:33.482089
License: Public Domain

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 28, 1966, affirmed. Assuming, without deciding, that upon reasonable notice to the District Attorney an indigent defendant would be entitled to a transcript of the testimony of a witness on a prior trial which otherwise would not have been transcribed by the People (cf. People v. Jaglom, 17 N Y 2d 162), we are of the opinion that the failure here to furnish defendant with the former testimony of a named police officer did not constitute reversible error. The request was not made until the officer was being cross-examined; the prior testimony apparently had not been transcribed and was not in the possession of the District Attorney, who had made his entire file available to defendant; and, in any event, there was no substantial inconsistency between the prior testimony and the testimony at the trial (cf. People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286, 291). Defendant’s other contentions have been examined and we find no merit therein. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.