New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Ranghelle

  • People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986): Consequences of Failing to Disclose Rosario Material

    People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986)

    The prosecution has an absolute duty to provide the defense with Rosario material (prior statements of prosecution witnesses) and the failure to do so requires a new trial, regardless of good faith efforts to locate the material.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the prosecution’s failure to disclose Rosario material (prior statements of a prosecution witness) required a new trial. The Court held that the prosecution’s duty to provide such material is absolute, and the failure to do so necessitates a new trial, irrespective of the prosecution’s good faith efforts to locate the material. The Court emphasized that the defense has no obligation to request the material or object to its non-production to preserve the issue for appeal. The decision reinforces the importance of the Rosario rule in ensuring fair trials in New York.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of criminal charges. During the trial, a prosecution witness testified. Prior to the conclusion of evidence, the defense requested Rosario material related to the witness (prior statements). The prosecution failed to provide certain Rosario material, despite claiming to have made efforts to locate it.

    Procedural History

    The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after the lower courts upheld the conviction. The Court of Appeals considered whether the failure to disclose Rosario material warranted a reversal of the conviction and a new trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the prosecution’s failure to provide Rosario material to the defense, despite good faith efforts to locate it, requires a new trial.

    Holding

    Yes, because the prosecution has an absolute duty to turn over Rosario material, and the failure to do so requires a new trial, irrespective of their efforts to locate such material.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that CPL 240.45 requires the prosecution to make Rosario material available to the defendant. The duty to produce is absolute. The Court cited People v. Jones, 70 N.Y.2d 547; People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154 to support the rule. The Court emphasized that this obligation cannot be avoided even by good-faith, but unsuccessful efforts, to locate the material. The Court noted that the defense is not required to request the material or object to its non-production to preserve the issue for appeal. "[W]e have made it clear that the People’s failure to turn over Rosario material may not be excused on the ground that they were unaware of its existence or were unable to locate it." The dissent argued that the majority’s ruling was incongruous. It noted that attorneys who request covered material are penalized unless they take affirmative steps to clearly preserve the Rosario objection, but attorneys who say nothing are fully protected and automatically entitled to a new trial.

  • People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986): Preserving Rosario Violations for Appellate Review

    People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986)

    To preserve a Rosario violation for appellate review, the defendant must object at a time when the trial court can provide a remedy.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order and remitted the case because the defendant failed to preserve the Rosario violation claim for appellate review. The defendant argued that the prosecution failed to produce Rosario material related to a witness’s videotaped testimony. However, the defense counsel did not raise the Rosario issue before the trial court or a hearing court in a timely manner when a remedy could have been implemented, such as excluding the videotaped testimony. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.

    Facts

    The prosecution presented videotaped testimony of a witness who was later deported.

    Defense counsel alleged the People failed to produce certain Rosario material pertinent to the videotaped testimony.

    At a Wade hearing, defense counsel brought the omission to the judge’s attention, but the judge stated that their jurisdiction was limited to the Wade hearing and the objection should be made before the trial court.

    Defense counsel acknowledged the court’s limited role and stated she only wanted to record when she received the material.

    At a CPL 670.20 hearing and at trial, defense counsel made several motions, some directly relating to the videotaped testimony, but did not raise the Rosario issue.

    Procedural History

    The case was heard in a Wade hearing, then a CPL 670.20 hearing, and then at trial.

    The Appellate Division issued an order, which was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for a determination of the facts and consideration of issues not previously reached.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant preserved the Rosario violation claim for appellate review when the defense counsel failed to object at a time when the trial court could have provided a remedy.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant’s failure to object at a time when the Rosario violation could have been redressed constituted a failure to preserve the issue for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant’s claim regarding the failure to produce Rosario material was not preserved for review because the defense counsel did not raise the issue before the trial court or hearing court at a time when a remedy could have been implemented. By failing to object when the trial court could have taken action, such as excluding the videotaped testimony, the defendant lost the opportunity to have the Rosario violation addressed. The Court emphasized the importance of raising objections at the trial level to allow the court to correct any errors. The court stated, “Defendant’s failure to object at a time when any Rosario violation could have been redressed — as, for example, by excluding the videotaped testimony — constituted a failure to preserve the issue for appellate review.”

  • People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986): Obligations and Consequences of Failing to Produce Rosario Material

    People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986)

    The prosecution’s complete failure to provide Rosario material to the defense requires automatic reversal of the conviction and a new trial, regardless of prejudice, and neither good faith nor the defendant’s access to the material excuses this obligation.

    Summary

    This case addresses the scope and consequences of the Rosario rule, which requires the prosecution to provide defense counsel with pretrial statements of prosecution witnesses. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution’s complete failure to produce a police complaint report (in Ranghelle) and police officer memo books containing witness statements (in Buster) constituted per se error, requiring reversal and a new trial in both cases, irrespective of the prosecution’s good faith or the potential lack of prejudice to the defense. The court emphasized that the burden of producing these statements lies solely with the People.

    Facts

    In Ranghelle, a sanitation enforcement agent, Nazario, filed a complaint against Ranghelle after an altercation. The complaint report, filed at the 77th precinct, was not provided to the defense before Nazario’s cross-examination. In Buster, a robbery victim, Benitez, gave descriptions of the robbers to police officers, who recorded them in memo books. These memo books were not provided to the defense, but the officers testified about the contents on cross-examination. The defense argued misidentification in Buster.

    Procedural History

    In Ranghelle, the Appellate Term affirmed the conviction despite the failure to produce the Rosario material, finding no deliberate misconduct or prejudice. In Buster, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction without opinion, after the trial court denied a motion for mistrial and instructed the jury to disregard the memo book testimony.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a police complaint report containing a witness’s allegations constitutes Rosario material that the prosecution must disclose.

    2. Whether the prosecution’s good faith effort to locate Rosario material excuses a failure to produce it.

    3. Whether the Rosario rule applies when the defense has independent knowledge of or access to the witness’s prior statement.

    4. Whether oral testimony regarding the contents of memo books is sufficient production of Rosario material.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because it contains a statement of a prosecution witness that should be disclosed after the witness testifies.

    2. No, because the People’s good faith is irrelevant.

    3. No, because the burden to locate and produce prior statements of complaining witnesses remains solely with the People.

    4. No, because the books themselves must be delivered to defense counsel.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Rosario rule entitles a defendant to inspect prior statements of prosecution witnesses for impeachment purposes, regardless of whether the statements appear consistent with the witness’s trial testimony. The court emphasized that even seemingly harmonious statements might be valuable for cross-examination. The Court reiterated its prior holdings that the character of the statement is not determined by how it’s recorded. The Court distinguished between a delay in producing Rosario material (where prejudice must be shown) and a complete failure to produce, which constitutes per se error. The Court stated that “[a]s long as the statement relates to the subject matter of the witness’ testimony and contains nothing that must be kept confidential, defense counsel should be allowed to determine for themselves the use to be made of it on cross-examination”. The court rejected the argument that the People’s good faith or the defense’s ability to subpoena the material excused the prosecution’s obligation. It stated that ” ‘the State has no interest in interposing any obstacle to the disclosure of the facts’ “. The court also clarified that oral testimony about the contents of memo books does not satisfy the Rosario requirement; the documents themselves must be provided. In Buster, the inconsistencies between the memo books and incident reports, though minor, meant that the memo books were not duplicative equivalents. Because of the inconsistencies, the People could not claim the descriptions in the memo books were the ‘duplicative equivalents’ of the descriptions in the incident reports.