People v. Ranghelle, 44 N.Y.2d 74 (1978)
When the prosecution fails to provide a defendant with a witness’s prior statement as required by the Rosario rule, the error is harmless if the defendant possesses and uses essentially duplicative statements of the same witness.
Summary
The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecution’s failure to provide him with a memorandum of a prosecution witness’s prior statement before trial constituted reversible error under the Rosario rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that although the memorandum should have been provided, the existence of essentially duplicative statements (Grand Jury testimony and statements to the prosecutor) that the defendant possessed and used eliminated any possibility of prejudice. This case clarifies that a Rosario violation doesn’t automatically warrant reversal if duplicative material was available and used effectively.
Facts
Officer De Setto was an eyewitness to the crime for which the defendant was convicted. Prior to trial, the prosecution did not provide the defendant with a memorandum of a statement Officer De Setto made. During the trial, but after Officer De Setto testified, the memorandum was provided to the defendant. The defendant argued that not having the statement beforehand prevented him from effectively cross-examining De Setto about inconsistencies between the prior statement and his trial testimony. However, the defendant had access to and used De Setto’s Grand Jury testimony and statements to the prosecutor, which were essentially duplicative of the memorandum.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction. He then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution’s failure to provide the defendant with a prior statement of a prosecution witness before trial, in violation of the Rosario rule, constitutes reversible error when the defendant possessed and used essentially duplicative statements of the same witness.
Holding
No, because the availability of duplicative material, which was in fact used by the defendant, eliminates both the possibility of prejudice and the asserted ground for reversal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the memorandum of Officer De Setto’s prior statement should have been provided to the defendant before trial, consistent with the Rosario rule. However, the Court emphasized the presence of