People v. Martinez, 22 N.Y.3d 551 (2014)
When Rosario material is lost or destroyed, a sanction is not mandated unless the defendant establishes prejudice; if prejudice is shown, the choice of the proper sanction is left to the trial judge’s discretion.
Summary
Defendants Selbin and Christopher Martinez were convicted of attempted robbery. The key issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in declining to give an adverse inference charge to the jury after a police officer’s handwritten complaint report (scratch 61) was lost. The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion because the defendants failed to demonstrate they were prejudiced by the missing document. The court emphasized that the defense must establish prejudice before a sanction is required for lost Rosario material, and the choice of sanction lies within the trial court’s discretion.
Facts
Armando Irizarry, Sr., a resident of a public housing building, was accosted in the hallway outside his apartment by two men dressed in black, one with a baseball bat (Selbin) and one with a gun (Christopher). Irizarry recognized Selbin by his walk and Christopher by his movements, which were similar to how he reacted to Irizarry’s dog. Irizarry fought them off, and he and his son fled. Police Officer Franco responded to the scene and interviewed Irizarry. Franco prepared a handwritten complaint report (scratch 61). Selbin was found hiding in a closet in his apartment with a head injury consistent with Irizarry’s account that he struck Selbin with a billiard ball. Christopher was arrested the next day.
Procedural History
The defendants were jointly tried and convicted of attempted robbery. During trial, it was revealed that the police officer’s handwritten complaint report (scratch 61) was missing. The defense requested an adverse inference charge, which the trial court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to give an adverse inference charge to the jury after a police officer’s handwritten complaint report, considered Rosario material, was lost, when the defense failed to demonstrate prejudice from the loss.
Holding
No, because the defendants failed to establish that they were prejudiced by the loss of the scratch 61. The choice of a proper sanction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reviewed its prior case law regarding the loss or destruction of Rosario material (statements of a witness that the prosecution must disclose to the defense). The Court emphasized that the per se reversal rule (requiring automatic reversal of a conviction if Rosario material was not disclosed) does not apply when Rosario material is lost or destroyed; rather, a showing of prejudice is required. The Court cited People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937 (1988), stating that if the People fail to preserve Rosario material and the defendant is prejudiced, the court must impose an appropriate sanction, focusing primarily on eliminating prejudice. The Court distinguished cases such as People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953 (1990) and People v. Joseph, 86 N.Y.2d 565 (1995), where sanctions were called for due to deliberate destruction of Rosario material and demonstrated prejudice.
In this case, the Court found that the defendants failed to establish prejudice. The defense attorneys requested an adverse inference charge simply because the scratch 61 could not be produced, without articulating any specific potential prejudice. The Court noted the speculative nature of the defendants’ arguments, such as suggesting the scratch 61 might have contained an inconsistent statement from Irizarry. The Court highlighted the legislative intent behind CPL § 240.75, which signals an aversion to per se rules leading to reversal of convictions for Rosario violations.
The Court concluded that because the defendants did not meet their burden of demonstrating prejudice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to issue an adverse inference charge. The Court also rejected the defendants’ other claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of the identification charge.