People v. Adger, 75 N.Y.2d 723 (1989)

When a defendant requests specific documents under People v. Rosario, the trial court must examine the requested material to determine if it contains prior statements of prosecution witnesses and is thus subject to disclosure, unless an exception such as work product or duplicative nature applies.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court erred by failing to require the prosecution to turn over specific documents requested by the defense under People v. Rosario. In People v. Adger, the trial court summarily concluded the defense was not entitled to the Grand Jury synopsis sheet and the Early Case Assessment Bureau data sheet without examining the documents. In People v. Austin, the trial court examined the documents but overlooked that the data analysis form contained statements from a prosecution witness. The Court of Appeals remitted both cases for further proceedings, emphasizing the trial court’s duty to examine requested material to determine if it constitutes Rosario material and whether any exceptions apply.

Facts

In People v. Adger: The defendant was charged with robbery. The prosecution provided some Rosario material but refused to provide the Grand Jury synopsis sheet and the Early Case Assessment Bureau data sheet, claiming they were work product.

In People v. Austin: The defendant was charged with robbery. The prosecution provided some Rosario material but refused to provide the Grand Jury synopsis sheet and the data analysis form, arguing it was work product and not witness statements. The defense argued the data analysis form contained statements from the arresting officer, a testifying witness.

Procedural History

In both cases, the trial courts denied the defendants’ requests for the specified documents. The Appellate Division’s orders were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in People v. Adger by failing to examine the requested documents to determine if they constituted Rosario material.

2. Whether the trial court erred in People v. Austin by overlooking that the data analysis form contained statements of a prosecution witness when determining if it constituted Rosario material.

Holding

1. No, in People v. Adger because the trial court failed to conduct any examination to determine if the material requested by the defense was Rosario material, requiring remittance for proper examination.

2. Yes, in People v. Austin, because the trial court improperly glossed over the fact that the data analysis form contained statements of a prosecution witness, necessitating remittance for focused determination on potential exemptions.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reiterated the importance of trial courts examining requested documents to determine if they contain prior statements of prosecution witnesses (Rosario material). Citing People v. Poole, 48 NY2d 144, 149-150 and People v. Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446, 453, the court emphasized that this examination is crucial before deciding whether the documents should be disclosed. The Court found the trial court in Adger failed to conduct any examination. In Austin, while the trial court did examine the documents, it erred by not recognizing that the data analysis form contained statements from the arresting officer. The Court highlighted that if the documents are determined to be Rosario material, the focus shifts to whether an exception, such as work product or duplication, applies. If the documents should have been disclosed, a new trial is required; otherwise, the judgments should be amended. The court emphasized that the purpose of Rosario is to ensure the defense has access to information that could be used for cross-examination and impeachment of prosecution witnesses, stating that failing to examine the material thwarts this purpose.