Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in permitting a ballistics expert to testify for the People because defendant was not provided with that expert's report until January 12, 1996, five days before the commencement of trial. We disagree. The record establishes that the People furnished the ballistics...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.