Matter of Rodney B., 69 N.Y.2d 687 (1986)
In juvenile delinquency proceedings, the prosecution must disclose Rosario material (prior statements of prosecution witnesses) to the defense, and a judge’s determination that the material is duplicative is not a substitute for defense counsel’s own assessment of its usefulness.
Summary
Rodney B. was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for acts constituting criminal tampering. At trial, defense counsel requested the Transit Authority officer’s memo book as Rosario material, which was denied because the judge determined the contents were in other documents already given to the defense. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that denying the memo book’s production was error, even with the officer’s testimony, because defense counsel is entitled to review Rosario material independently. The memo book contained a notation not included in other documents, which could have aided Rodney B.’s defense, making the error not harmless.
Facts
Respondent, Rodney B., was accused of tampering with safety gates between subway cars.
At the Family Court hearing, Rodney B. raised an affirmative defense, claiming he did not act for a larcenous or unlawful purpose.
Defense counsel requested the Transit Authority officer’s memo book for potential impeachment material (Rosario material).
The officer testified that his memo book contained nothing not already in the field investigation worksheet (TP67) and probation intake referral report (PIRR), which had been provided to the defense.
Procedural History
The Family Court Judge denied defense counsel’s request for the officer’s memo book.
Rodney B. was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and placed with the New York State Division for Youth.
Defense counsel only received the memo book after filing the Appellate Division brief.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Family Court erred in denying defense counsel’s request for the Transit Authority officer’s memo book as Rosario material, based on the officer’s testimony that its contents were duplicative of other disclosed documents.
Holding
Yes, because a judge’s determination regarding the usefulness of a witness’s prior statement is not a substitute for defense counsel’s own assessment; therefore, the memo book should have been produced. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new hearing.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on Family Court Act § 331.4 (1) (a), which is based on Criminal Procedure Law § 240.45 and the precedent set by People v. Rosario, to emphasize the importance of providing defense counsel with prior statements of prosecution witnesses.
The Court quoted People v. Perez, stating that even “a judge’s impartial determination as to what portions [of a statement] may be useful to the defense, is no substitute for the single-minded devotion of counsel for the accused.”
The Court found that the memo book was not simply duplicative because it contained a statement that Rodney B. had seen the officer watching him and another person board the train from between cars. This was consistent with the defendant’s testimony and could have been used to support his affirmative defense.
The Court referenced People v. Consolazio, suggesting that the “better practice is to direct turnover of material sought once it is determined that it is in fact Rosario material”.
Because the defense was denied the opportunity to use this information, the court found the error was not harmless. The Court emphasized the importance of the defense having access to all Rosario material for effective cross-examination and presentation of their case.