People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986)
To preserve a Rosario violation for appellate review, the defendant must object at a time when the trial court can provide a remedy.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order and remitted the case because the defendant failed to preserve the Rosario violation claim for appellate review. The defendant argued that the prosecution failed to produce Rosario material related to a witness’s videotaped testimony. However, the defense counsel did not raise the Rosario issue before the trial court or a hearing court in a timely manner when a remedy could have been implemented, such as excluding the videotaped testimony. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.
Facts
The prosecution presented videotaped testimony of a witness who was later deported.
Defense counsel alleged the People failed to produce certain Rosario material pertinent to the videotaped testimony.
At a Wade hearing, defense counsel brought the omission to the judge’s attention, but the judge stated that their jurisdiction was limited to the Wade hearing and the objection should be made before the trial court.
Defense counsel acknowledged the court’s limited role and stated she only wanted to record when she received the material.
At a CPL 670.20 hearing and at trial, defense counsel made several motions, some directly relating to the videotaped testimony, but did not raise the Rosario issue.
Procedural History
The case was heard in a Wade hearing, then a CPL 670.20 hearing, and then at trial.
The Appellate Division issued an order, which was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for a determination of the facts and consideration of issues not previously reached.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant preserved the Rosario violation claim for appellate review when the defense counsel failed to object at a time when the trial court could have provided a remedy.
Holding
No, because the defendant’s failure to object at a time when the Rosario violation could have been redressed constituted a failure to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant’s claim regarding the failure to produce Rosario material was not preserved for review because the defense counsel did not raise the issue before the trial court or hearing court at a time when a remedy could have been implemented. By failing to object when the trial court could have taken action, such as excluding the videotaped testimony, the defendant lost the opportunity to have the Rosario violation addressed. The Court emphasized the importance of raising objections at the trial level to allow the court to correct any errors. The court stated, “Defendant’s failure to object at a time when any Rosario violation could have been redressed — as, for example, by excluding the videotaped testimony — constituted a failure to preserve the issue for appellate review.”