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”.