People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610 (1992)

The Rosario rule mandates that the prosecution disclose any prior statements of its witnesses, and a per se reversal is required when such material is improperly withheld, unless the withheld material is the duplicative equivalent of material already disclosed.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the prosecution’s failure to disclose an “unusual occurrence report addendum” constituted a Rosario violation, requiring reversal of the defendant’s murder conviction. The court held that a per se reversal is required if the report contained statements of a trial witness and was not the duplicative equivalent of previously disclosed material. The court rejected the Appellate Division’s attempt to create a “commonsense” exception based on the perceived insubstantiality of the undisclosed material, reaffirming the strict application of the Rosario rule to ensure procedural fairness.

Facts

Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder based largely on the testimony of his girlfriend, Marie Somie, who claimed he described killing the victim to her. The prosecution presented testimony from police officers, including Officer Serra and Detective Daniel, who investigated the crime scene. During the appeal process, the prosecution discovered an undisclosed “unusual occurrence report addendum” authored by Sergeant Maisano. This report contained observations by the “investigating officer” regarding possible rope burns on the victim’s body, information not explicitly mentioned in other disclosed documents. The defense argued that Somie fabricated the story, and the undisclosed report could have aided in their cross-examination of the police officers.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to a 25-year-to-life term. While his appeal was pending, the undisclosed document was discovered. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding the report was duplicative and did not affect the credibility of the police officers or the defendant’s guilt. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the undisclosed “unusual occurrence report addendum” constituted Rosario material because it contained statements of a trial witness.
2. Whether the Appellate Division erred in applying a “commonsense” exception to the Rosario rule based on the perceived insubstantiality of the undisclosed material.
3. Whether the withheld report was the “duplicative equivalent” of other materials already disclosed to the defense.

Holding

1. The Court of Appeals did not definitively decide if the document constituted Rosario material, but remitted the case for a determination of whether the report contained statements made by a witness who testified at trial.

2. Yes, because the Appellate Division’s approach substituted a harmless error analysis for the per se reversal rule mandated in Rosario violations on direct appeal.

3. No, because the report contained details, specifically about possible rope burns, that were not explicitly mentioned in the disclosed statements of testifying officers.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division erred in both its “duplicative equivalent” analysis and its creation of a “commonsense” exception to the Rosario rule. The court emphasized that documents are not duplicative if there are variations or inconsistencies, or if they omit details that could be valuable for cross-examination. Here, the report mentioned rope burns, which were not in the disclosed police statements.

The court also reaffirmed its commitment to the per se reversal rule in Rosario violations on direct appeal, stating that harmless error analysis is inappropriate. The court explicitly rejected the suggestion that reversal should not be required where the withheld Rosario information was “of only ‘de minimis’ or ‘minimal’ value.” The court stated that “a judge’s impartial determination as to what portions may be useful to the defense, is no substitute for the single-minded devotion of counsel for the accused.”

Because it was unclear whether the “investigating officer” referred to in the report was a testifying witness, the court remitted the case to the trial court for a determination on that issue. If the report contained statements from a testifying witness, a new trial would be ordered; otherwise, the judgment would be amended to reflect that determination.