New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Goins

  • People v. Goins, 73 N.Y.2d 983 (1989): Duty to Disclose Rosario Material at a Useful Time

    People v. Goins, 73 N.Y.2d 983 (1989)

    A prosecutor’s duty to provide Rosario material (prior statements of prosecution witnesses) includes providing it at a time when it can be effectively used by the defense; an offer to provide the material after the defense has rested is not a sufficient remedy for a prior Rosario violation.

    Summary

    The defendant was convicted of a crime, and the conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the prosecution failed to provide the defense with a police officer’s daily activity report (DAR) in a timely manner, violating the Rosario rule. The court found that offering the report only after the defense had rested its case was insufficient to remedy the violation because the defense had already structured its case based on a perceived discrepancy that the DAR could have clarified. The court reasoned that late disclosure would only bolster the prosecution’s case while undermining the defense.

    Facts

    The key facts are centered around the prosecution’s failure to timely disclose a police officer’s Daily Activity Report (DAR). The defense believed a discrepancy existed concerning the undercover officer’s activities on the day of the sale. Defense counsel structured their defense, rested their case, and prepared their summation based on the perceived discrepancy. The prosecution offered the DAR only after both sides had rested.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the prosecution’s offer to provide the defendant with Rosario material (specifically, a police officer’s Daily Activity Report) after both sides had rested constituted a sufficient remedy for the prosecution’s failure to provide the material in a timely manner.

    Holding

    No, because a witness’s prior statement must be furnished to the defendant at a time when it can be useful to the defense.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that the prosecution had a clear obligation to furnish the defense with a copy of the police officer’s daily activity report (DAR) under People v. Rosario and People v. Ranghelle well before both sides rested their cases. The Court found that the trial court’s offer to reopen the case for cross-examination with the DAR, after the defense had already rested, was insufficient to cure the Rosario violation. The Court stated, “A witness’s prior statement must be furnished to the defendant at a time when it can be useful to the defense.” Because the defense had already been structured around a perceived discrepancy, introducing the DAR at that late stage would only serve to bolster the prosecution’s case while undermining the defense’s strategy. The Court rejected the Appellate Division’s interpretation that the defense counsel’s refusal to accept the late disclosure constituted a waiver. The Court reasoned that the right to timely disclosure had already been violated, and the defense’s rejection of the inadequate remedy did not constitute abandonment of that right. The court emphasized the importance of timely disclosure for effective cross-examination and trial strategy, quoting People v. Perez, noting the prior statement must be useful to the defense. Allowing the prosecution to rectify the error so late in the trial would prejudice the defendant, and “destroy the defense while bolstering the case for the prosecution”.

  • People v. Goins, 73 N.Y.2d 983 (1989): Consequences of Delayed Rosario Material Disclosure

    People v. Goins, 73 N.Y.2d 983 (1989)

    A delay in disclosing Rosario material (prior statements of a prosecution witness) that prejudices the defendant’s trial strategy warrants a new trial.

    Summary

    The defendant was convicted of burglary, sodomy, and related offenses. His defense hinged on inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements. The prosecution, aware of a memo book entry from a hospital interview with the complainant that corroborated her trial testimony, did not disclose it until after the defense had built its strategy around the statement’s supposed non-existence. This late disclosure significantly undermined the defense’s strategy, as it rehabilitated the complainant’s credibility. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order and ordered a new trial, holding that the delayed disclosure of the Rosario material prejudiced the defendant.

    Facts

    The defendant was charged with burglary, sodomy, and related offenses. The complainant provided an initial statement to the police. Later, she was interviewed at the hospital. The arresting officer testified about interviewing the complainant in her apartment and at the hospital. He stated that the hospital interview did not cause him to change his original memo book entry. The prosecutor knew of a memo book entry memorializing the hospital interview. The prosecutor elicited testimony that the complainant’s hospital version was substantially similar to her trial testimony.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The defense appealed, arguing that the delayed disclosure of Rosario material prejudiced his defense. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the People’s delay in disclosing Rosario material (a prior consistent statement of the complaining witness) until after the defense had committed to a particular trial strategy prejudiced the defendant to warrant a new trial.

    Holding

    Yes, because the delayed disclosure of the statement recorded in the hospital prejudiced the defendant substantially by undermining his defense strategy which depended on the statement’s nonexistence and rehabilitated the complaining witness’s credibility.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the principles established in People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 159 (1985); People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986); and People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 289 (1961). The court reasoned that the prosecution’s failure to disclose the memo book entry memorializing the hospital interview prejudiced the defendant’s ability to effectively cross-examine the complaining witness and construct his defense. The defense strategy was based on highlighting inconsistencies between the complainant’s initial version and her later testimony. The undisclosed memo book entry, which corroborated her trial testimony and refuted any claim of recent fabrication, directly undermined this strategy. By the time the defense learned of the memo book entry, they had already committed to a line of questioning that was severely weakened by the new information. The court emphasized that the “People’s delay in turning over the statement recorded in the hospital — revealed as it was only after defense counsel had moved forward on a strategy that depended on the statement’s nonexistence — substantially prejudiced the defendant.” This prejudice warranted a new trial to ensure the defendant had a fair opportunity to present his defense with full knowledge of the evidence against him.