C. Detective Malone's Testimony The Record reveals a clear, sharp conflict between Detective Malone and both defendants on the factual issue of whether or not Lanclos "dropped" contraband in "open view" of Malone. Malone testified that Lanclos did (H. M. pp. 6-7; T. M. pp. 19-24). Lanclos (H. M. pp. 26-27; T. M. pp. 148-150, 161-165) and Rosario (H. M. pp. 18-20; T. M. pp. 132-135) testified that a "dropping" did not occur. Furthermore, there is no testimony by Cullen, the People's rebuttal witness at the trial, that a "dropping" occurred (T. M. pp. 178-197) or that the shopping bag was "handled" by Rosario and Lanclos at the trunk23 Malone's testimony of the circumstances surrounding the incident appears contrived and incredible. In essence, it shows that: (1) Lanclos conveniently "dropped" the shopping bag, almost at Malone's feet (T. M. p. 19) (2) Two packets conveniently fell out of the 23. Cullen testified that when he was sitting in the car his view was blocked by Malone's head and shoulder while Rosario and Lanclos were at the trunk (T. M. p. 181). The Record does not indicate whether he moved his head in front of or behind Malone in order to try to observe the "handling" or whether his head suddenly became immobilized (T. M. pp. 178-197). ! (3) Malone, who believed Lanclos was a (4) Malone then leisurely picked up the fallen (5) During all this time, Lanclos, a (6) When Malone emerged from his car (7) Malone did not recall how he stopped Moreover, a significant part of Malone's story is patently false, i.e., that he observed Lanclos "drop" marijuana, not opaque packets. (See Appellant's Brief, footnotes 8-11, p. 7)24, Under these circumstances, People v. White, supra, indicates inat Malone's testimony that Lanclos "dropped" marijuana 24. There is no excuse for this testimony by Detective Malone. He was an experienced police officer involved in about 500 prior arrests (T. M. pp. 30, 74). |