People v. Catti, 48 N.Y.2d 415 (1979)
Reciprocal discovery in criminal cases allows the prosecution to obtain discovery from the defendant of property of the same general character as that which the defendant seeks from the prosecution, touching on the same subject matter, provided the defendant’s initial request is for discretionary discovery.
Summary
Defendants were convicted of petit larceny for stealing merchandise from Macy’s. Prior to trial, the People were granted discovery of sales receipts possessed by the defendants, which allegedly showed the purchase of the items stolen. At trial, the receipts were used by the defense to impeach a prosecution witness. The prosecution then used the receipts to show they represented purchases made after the arrest. The defendants argued that the pretrial discovery granted to the People was improper. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the reciprocal discovery was proper because the sales receipts were of the same general character as the information the defendants sought from the prosecution.
Facts
Defendants were arrested for allegedly stealing merchandise from Macy’s Department Store. Prior to trial, the defense informed the prosecution of sales receipts in their possession, allegedly for the items which were the subject of the larceny charge, but refused to allow inspection of those receipts. The People moved for discovery of these receipts. The defense had also requested an internal security report of the incident prepared by a Macy’s store detective, Kitty Wills. At trial, defense counsel used the receipts in an attempt to impeach Kitty Wills. The prosecution then recalled Ms. Wills and another Macy’s employee to show the receipts were actually for purchases made after the defendants were arrested.
Procedural History
The People were granted discovery of the sales receipts in defendants’ possession before trial. The defendants were convicted of petit larceny upon a jury verdict. The Appellate Term affirmed the convictions. The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Appellate Term’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the grant of the People’s motion for pretrial discovery of sales receipts in the defendants’ possession was improper under the discovery statute and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Holding
No, because the then-applicable statutory prerequisites for reciprocal discovery were present and the items sought by the prosecution were of the same general character as that sought by the defendant and touched the same subject matter. Also, the production of the receipts did not violate the defendants’ Fifth Amendment rights.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that New York’s criminal discovery procedure, embodied in Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law, aims to ensure that criminal trials are not