People v. HenryPeople v. Henry
On the totality of the record before us, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Ben
The court properly refused to allow defendant to refresh the arresting officer’s recollection regarding his route of pursuit of defendant by means of a data sheet that an Assistant District Attorney had prepared after interviewing a different officer, since the arresting officer at no time indicated that he needed his recollection refreshed on this subject. The court also properly refused to allow defense counsel to recall the other officer for purposes of establishing that the arresting officer had made a prior inconsistent statement, since it was never established that the arresting officer spoke with the other officer about the chase route prior to the preparation of the data sheet. Accordingly, defendant failed to lay the proper foundation for introducing the alleged prior inconsistent statement (see People v Wise,
We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the noninclusory concurrent count (see People v Spence,
We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.