People v. Jones, 70 N.Y.2d 547 (1987)
A complete failure to provide Rosario material to the defense requires a new trial, and the People cannot remedy this failure by later claiming the undisclosed material was a duplicate equivalent of disclosed material if it was not included in the trial record.
Summary
The defendant was convicted after an altercation. At trial, the defense requested the police officer’s memo book and arrest report related to the co-defendant’s arrest, pursuant to People v. Rosario. The prosecution stated it would provide these items, but the record only showed that the officer returned with *other* materials. The Court of Appeals held that the complete failure to provide the requested Rosario material warranted a new trial. The Court further stated that the People could not argue on appeal that the unproduced items were the equivalent of disclosed materials, as these items were not made part of the record.
Facts
The defendant, Jones, and Scott Horne were arrested following an altercation at a jewelry exchange.
During the trial, defense counsel requested, based on People v. Rosario, access to the police officer’s memo book and the arrest report pertaining to Horne’s arrest.
The People stated that the officer would return with these materials.
The officer returned to the courthouse but only provided *other* materials, not the memo book or arrest report.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial.
The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding a Rosario violation.
The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the People’s failure to provide Rosario material (police officer’s memo book and arrest report) requires a new trial.
Whether the People can argue on appeal that the undisclosed materials were the duplicate equivalent of disclosed materials, when those undisclosed materials are not part of the trial court record.
Holding
Yes, because there was a complete failure to comply with the Rosario rule. The Appellate Division correctly held that a new trial was required.
No, because the People should have included these items in the trial court record so the issue could be resolved on appeal in the normal course.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the record demonstrated a complete failure to provide the requested Rosario material, not merely a delay.
Referencing People v. Ranghelle, the Court reiterated the importance of providing Rosario material and the consequences of failing to do so.
The Court refused to remit the case for a hearing to determine if the undisclosed items were duplicate equivalents because the People failed to include the items in the trial court record.
The Court stated: “If the People intended to raise this issue to justify the nondisclosure, they should have included these items in the trial court record so that the point could be resolved on appeal in the normal course.”
The Court cited People v. Consolazio and People v. Ranghelle to support this proposition.
The Court’s decision underscores the prosecution’s burden to properly preserve the record for appellate review when attempting to justify the non-disclosure of Rosario material.