40 N.Y.2d 451 (1976)
Under the Rosario rule, the prosecution must turn over prior statements of its witnesses, but this requirement does not extend to duplicative equivalents of statements already disclosed to the defense.
Summary
Consolazio, an attorney, was convicted on six counts of grand larceny. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution’s failure to disclose certain worksheets compiled during witness interviews violated the Rosario and Brady rules. The Court of Appeals held that while the worksheets constituted Rosario material, their non-disclosure was harmless error because the information they contained was duplicative of Grand Jury testimony already provided to the defense. The Court also addressed and rejected Consolazio’s challenge to the jury panel selection process.
Facts
Consolazio solicited investments from individuals, promising high returns, but failed to return the funds. He was indicted on multiple counts of grand larceny. Before trial, the prosecution interviewed potential witnesses and created worksheets summarizing their responses to questions. During the trial, the defense requested these worksheets, arguing they were Rosario and Brady material. The prosecution initially denied their existence and later refused to turn them over, claiming they were not statements of the witnesses and contained no exculpatory information.
Procedural History
The Nassau County Court convicted Consolazio on six counts. The People’s appeal of the dismissal of other counts was consolidated with Consolazio’s appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions and reinstated most of the dismissed counts. Consolazio appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals considered both Consolazio’s appeal and the People’s appeal from the trial order of dismissal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the People’s appeal from the trial order dismissing certain counts was barred by double jeopardy principles.
2. Whether the prosecution’s failure to turn over worksheets compiled during witness interviews violated the Rosario and Brady rules, warranting reversal of the convictions.
3. Whether the defendant’s challenge to the jury panel was properly denied.
Holding
1. Yes, because under People v. Brown, such an appeal was barred by double jeopardy.
2. No, because while the worksheets constituted Rosario material, their non-disclosure was harmless error, as they were duplicative equivalents of Grand Jury testimony already provided to the defense.
3. No, because the challenge to the jury panel was not made in writing before jury selection commenced, as required by CPL 270.10(2), and was therefore waived.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the People’s appeal was barred by double jeopardy. As to the worksheets, the Court determined that the trial court erred in not examining the worksheets itself to determine if they contained exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland, but after reviewing them, the Court of Appeals agreed that they contained no exculpatory information, making the error harmless. The Court further held that the worksheets constituted prior statements of prosecution witnesses under People v. Rosario. However, because the information in the worksheets was identical to the witnesses’ Grand Jury testimony, which had been turned over to the defense, the failure to disclose the worksheets was harmless error. The Court emphasized that withholding Rosario material is typically not excused based on its limited use to the defense. However, this case presented a distinct issue: the worksheets were “duplicative equivalents” of previously disclosed statements. The court stated, “The worksheets in this instance were nothing more than duplicative equivalents of statements previously turned over to the defense—the only difference being as to the particular form in which such statements were recorded.” The Court also noted that a challenge to a jury panel must be made in writing before jury selection commences, as required by CPL 270.10(2). Since the written challenge was not made until after jury selection, the issue was waived.