People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986)

The prosecution’s complete failure to provide Rosario material to the defense requires automatic reversal of the conviction and a new trial, regardless of prejudice, and neither good faith nor the defendant’s access to the material excuses this obligation.

Summary

This case addresses the scope and consequences of the Rosario rule, which requires the prosecution to provide defense counsel with pretrial statements of prosecution witnesses. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution’s complete failure to produce a police complaint report (in Ranghelle) and police officer memo books containing witness statements (in Buster) constituted per se error, requiring reversal and a new trial in both cases, irrespective of the prosecution’s good faith or the potential lack of prejudice to the defense. The court emphasized that the burden of producing these statements lies solely with the People.

Facts

In Ranghelle, a sanitation enforcement agent, Nazario, filed a complaint against Ranghelle after an altercation. The complaint report, filed at the 77th precinct, was not provided to the defense before Nazario’s cross-examination. In Buster, a robbery victim, Benitez, gave descriptions of the robbers to police officers, who recorded them in memo books. These memo books were not provided to the defense, but the officers testified about the contents on cross-examination. The defense argued misidentification in Buster.

Procedural History

In Ranghelle, the Appellate Term affirmed the conviction despite the failure to produce the Rosario material, finding no deliberate misconduct or prejudice. In Buster, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction without opinion, after the trial court denied a motion for mistrial and instructed the jury to disregard the memo book testimony.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a police complaint report containing a witness’s allegations constitutes Rosario material that the prosecution must disclose.

2. Whether the prosecution’s good faith effort to locate Rosario material excuses a failure to produce it.

3. Whether the Rosario rule applies when the defense has independent knowledge of or access to the witness’s prior statement.

4. Whether oral testimony regarding the contents of memo books is sufficient production of Rosario material.

Holding

1. Yes, because it contains a statement of a prosecution witness that should be disclosed after the witness testifies.

2. No, because the People’s good faith is irrelevant.

3. No, because the burden to locate and produce prior statements of complaining witnesses remains solely with the People.

4. No, because the books themselves must be delivered to defense counsel.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Rosario rule entitles a defendant to inspect prior statements of prosecution witnesses for impeachment purposes, regardless of whether the statements appear consistent with the witness’s trial testimony. The court emphasized that even seemingly harmonious statements might be valuable for cross-examination. The Court reiterated its prior holdings that the character of the statement is not determined by how it’s recorded. The Court distinguished between a delay in producing Rosario material (where prejudice must be shown) and a complete failure to produce, which constitutes per se error. The Court stated that “[a]s long as the statement relates to the subject matter of the witness’ testimony and contains nothing that must be kept confidential, defense counsel should be allowed to determine for themselves the use to be made of it on cross-examination”. The court rejected the argument that the People’s good faith or the defense’s ability to subpoena the material excused the prosecution’s obligation. It stated that ” ‘the State has no interest in interposing any obstacle to the disclosure of the facts’ “. The court also clarified that oral testimony about the contents of memo books does not satisfy the Rosario requirement; the documents themselves must be provided. In Buster, the inconsistencies between the memo books and incident reports, though minor, meant that the memo books were not duplicative equivalents. Because of the inconsistencies, the People could not claim the descriptions in the memo books were the ‘duplicative equivalents’ of the descriptions in the incident reports.