People v. Kanefsky, 48 N.Y.2d 985 (1979)
A defendant’s conviction will not be reversed for failure to produce evidence if that evidence is irrelevant to the crime for which the defendant was convicted.
Summary
Bernard Kanefsky was convicted of receiving an unlawful gratuity. He moved to set aside the verdict because a pocket appointment book (diary) kept by Roberto, a cooperating individual, was not produced in response to a subpoena. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the conviction, holding that the diary’s contents, created before the commission of the crime, were irrelevant to the conviction. Even if a new trial were granted, the diary’s production would not assist the defendant because it lacked bearing on the specific unlawful act. The court also noted the extensive amount of other material that was properly disclosed to the defense.
Facts
Peter Roberto, an “expediter,” cooperated with the New York City Department of Investigation after being caught paying a bribe. He acted as an undercover agent, interacting with city employees, including Kanefsky, a building inspector. Kanefsky was indicted on four counts related to bribes allegedly received from Roberto. Kanefsky was ultimately convicted of only one count: receiving an unlawful gratuity on January 23, 1974. Roberto testified that on that date, he met Kanefsky and gave him a $20 “Christmas present”. This testimony was supported by a tape recording and evidence that Roberto had less recorded money after the meeting.
Procedural History
Kanefsky was convicted at trial. After the verdict, he moved to set aside the verdict based on the non-production of Roberto’s pocket appointment book. The trial court denied the motion, finding the diary immaterial because it was turned over to authorities before the crime Kanefsky was convicted of committing occurred. The Appellate Division reversed, stating that failure to turn over potentially relevant Rosario material could not be excused. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
- Whether the failure to produce Roberto’s pocket appointment book mandates reversal of Kanefsky’s conviction.
Holding
- No, because the contents of the diary were irrelevant to the specific criminal transaction for which Kanefsky was convicted.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the relevance of the diary to the crime of conviction, not merely whether it should have been disclosed. The court emphasized that the diary was turned over to law enforcement on January 10, 1974, before the unlawful gratuity was given on January 23, 1974. Thus, pre-January 10 notations could not bear on the later criminal conduct. A new trial would not be aided by the diary’s production because its contents are “wholly irrelevant to the subject matter of the new trial.” The Court also noted the substantial amount of other information that *was* produced, encompassing a wider scope than the diary. The court distinguished this case from situations where the withheld evidence directly relates to the crime of which the defendant was convicted. The dissent, referencing the Appellate Division opinion, argued that the failure to disclose potentially relevant Rosario material warrants reversal regardless of its perceived limited utility.