People v. Smith, 89 N.Y.2d 941 (1997)
The prosecution is not obligated to locate and turn over witness statements made during a prison disciplinary proceeding when those statements are held by the Department of Correctional Services, as that agency is primarily administrative rather than law enforcement.
Summary
Smith, a prison inmate, was convicted of assault. He argued that the prosecution failed to disclose statements of witnesses made during his prison disciplinary proceeding, violating the Rosario rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the prosecution had no duty to obtain and disclose these statements because they were held by the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), an administrative agency. The court reasoned that DOCS is not a law enforcement agency with a duty to share such material with the District Attorney, distinguishing it from entities directly involved in criminal investigations.
Facts
The defendant, Smith, was an inmate. He was involved in an incident within the correctional facility that led to criminal charges of assault. During the prison’s internal disciplinary proceedings regarding the incident, witness statements were taken. These statements were recorded in transcripts held by the State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS).
Procedural History
Smith was convicted of assault. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution violated the Rosario rule by failing to disclose the witness statements from the prison disciplinary proceeding. The Appellate Division upheld the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the statements of witnesses made during the defendant’s prison disciplinary proceeding constituted Rosario material that the prosecution was required to disclose.
2. Whether the inmate-eyewitness’s in-court identification had an independent source.
3. Whether the admission of testimony by a correction officer regarding a pretrial identification procedure was permissible bolstering requiring reversal.
4. Whether the circumstantial evidence offered at trial was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holding
1. No, because the statements were not within the People’s control as they were generated and held by the State Department of Correctional Services, an administrative rather than a law enforcement agency.
2. Yes, because there was support in the Wade hearing record for the Appellate Division’s finding that the inmate-eyewitness’s in-court identification had an independent source.
3. No, because the admission of testimony by a correction officer regarding that pretrial identification procedure was impermissible bolstering; however, the error was harmless in light of the clear and strong evidence of defendant’s guilt.
4. Yes, because the circumstantial evidence offered at trial was, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People, legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Rosario rule, requiring the prosecution to disclose prior statements of its witnesses, only applies to materials within the People’s control. The witness statements in question were held by DOCS, which the court characterized as primarily an administrative agency, not a law enforcement agency with a duty to share information with the District Attorney. The Court distinguished the Correction Department from agencies at the end of the State’s law enforcement chain, emphasizing its administrative function. The court cited People v. Washington, 86 NY2d 189, 192-193 and People v. Flynn, 79 NY2d 779, 882, indicating that the People had no obligation to attempt to locate and gain possession of the material.
Regarding the in-court identification, the Court deferred to the Appellate Division’s finding of an independent source. As to the bolstering claim, the Court acknowledged the error but deemed it harmless due to the strength of the other evidence against the defendant. Finally, the court found the circumstantial evidence legally sufficient, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, citing People v Norman, 85 NY2d 609, 620-622 and People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620.
The Court stated: “The statements in question were embodied in transcripts that were generated and held by the State Department of Correctional Services. That agency has no duty to share such material with the District Attorney for the county in which the underlying conduct occurred.”