People v. Novoa, 70 N.Y.2d 870 (1987)
The prosecution has a duty to provide the defense with prior statements of a witness, including plea minutes of an accomplice who testifies against the defendant, to ensure a fair trial, even if the minutes are untranscribed but ordered.
Summary
This case addresses the scope of the Rosario rule and CPL 240.45(1)(a), specifically whether the prosecution must provide the defense with untranscribed plea minutes of a potential prosecution witness. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution did not violate the rule because they lacked control over the untranscribed minutes. However, the dissent argued that the statute and principles of fairness necessitate providing such materials to the defense to reduce surprise and ensure effective cross-examination, especially when the prosecution is actively involved in the plea agreement.
Facts
Defendant was tried for attempted murder. One of the defendant’s accomplices, Fernando Castro, pleaded guilty to conspiracy in exchange for testifying against the defendant. The prosecution informed the defendant of this fact on the day before trial, indicating Castro “might” testify. During the opening statement, the prosecutor stated Castro would testify. Defense counsel requested a copy of Castro’s plea minutes for cross-examination. The prosecution stated the minutes were untranscribed.
Procedural History
The trial court concluded that the prosecution had no obligation to provide the defendant with the untranscribed plea minutes under People v. Rosario. The defendant was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a memorandum decision, with one judge dissenting.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution is required under CPL 240.45(1)(a) and the Rosario rule to provide the defense with untranscribed plea minutes of a potential prosecution witness when the minutes have been ordered but not yet received by the prosecution.
Holding
No, because the plea minutes were not in the control of the People.
Court’s Reasoning
The majority’s memorandum decision affirmed the lower court ruling without extensive reasoning. The dissent argued that CPL 240.45(1)(a) explicitly requires the prosecution to provide any written or recorded statement of a witness they intend to call at trial. The dissent emphasized that the statute aims to reduce surprise and broaden discovery in criminal trials. The dissent argued that the People’s active participation in the accomplice’s plea, coupled with their delay in informing the defendant and placing the burden on the defendant to obtain the minutes, resulted in unfairness. Quoting the Bill Jacket, the dissent noted that the statute aimed to make trials “fairer as the element of surprise is reduced”. The dissent contrasted the situation with cases where a defendant seeks a victim’s personal account of the crime, noting the prosecution’s direct involvement in the plea bargain. They highlighted that the key factor should be whether the statement might have been of use to the defense, referencing People v. Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 64. The dissent concluded that the prosecution’s conduct effectively “sandbagged” the defendant and that the prosecution had a duty to provide a transcribed copy of the plea.