PEOPLE v. CRAMER

The defendant was not entitled to the minutes of the Grand Jury testimony of his girlfriend. As we have already noted, "there can be no withholding or suppression of exculpatory evidence where, as here, the defendant knows the witnesses and is aware of the nature of their testimony" (People v. Dukes, 156 A.D.2d 203, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 965). Wardius v. Oregon ( 412 U.S. 470) does not require a different conclusion, inasmuch as the prosecutor admitted only to the possibility that there may be a discrepancy between the girlfriend's testimony and the defendant's Grand Jury testimony, and since, "under the circumstances of this case, there is no merit to the contention that defense counsel needed the Grand Jury minutes adequately to prepare a defense" (People v. Dukes, 156 A.D.2d, supra, at 204).

While the photograph of the lineup indicates that it was impermissibly suggestive, suppression of the identification was properly denied since the witness had an independent basis for the identification (People v. Johnson, 79 A.D.2d 617, 618).

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.