People v. John, 68 N.Y.2d 730, 508 N.Y.S.2d 826 (1986)

A defendant is not entitled to a victim’s private writings about an attack if the writings are not Rosario or Brady material, are not in the prosecution’s possession or control, and the victim objects to turning them over based on personal privacy rights.

Summary

The defendant, convicted of attempted rape, argued that he was unfairly denied access to the victim’s personal written account of the attack. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the defendant was not entitled to the victim’s private writing because it was neither Rosario nor Brady material, was not in the prosecution’s possession, and the victim asserted her privacy rights. Although the trial court directed the victim to redact and turn over a portion of the writing, the Court of Appeals clarified that the defendant had no legal right to the unredacted document or an in camera review of it.

Facts

The victim, a freelance writer, wrote a personal account of the attack in Central Park two days after it occurred.

The defendant, John, was convicted of two counts of attempted rape in the first degree.

The defendant sought access to the victim’s personal written account, claiming it was necessary for a fair trial.

The victim objected to turning over the document based on personal privacy rights.

Procedural History

The trial court ordered the victim to redact private matters from her written account and provide the redacted version to the defense.

The victim complied with the trial court’s order.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant is entitled to a victim’s private written account of an attack when the account is not Rosario or Brady material, is not in the prosecution’s possession or control, and the victim objects to its disclosure based on personal privacy rights.

Holding

No, because the victim’s personal account did not qualify as Rosario or Brady material, the document was not in the People’s possession or control, and the victim objected to providing the document based on her right to privacy.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant failed to establish any legal basis for accessing the victim’s private writing. The court emphasized that the writing was not Rosario material (prior statements of prosecution witnesses) or Brady material (exculpatory evidence). Because the writing was not in the possession or control of the prosecution and the victim asserted her privacy rights, the People had no obligation to provide the document to the defense.

The court acknowledged the trial court’s effort to balance the defendant’s right to a fair trial with the victim’s privacy interests by ordering redaction and partial disclosure. However, the Court of Appeals clarified that this action did not establish a right for the defendant to access the entire private writing or demand an in camera inspection of the unredacted document.

The court stated that the defendant’s claim was based solely on “fairness” and “a right sense of justice,” which did not outweigh established legal principles protecting privacy, particularly where the document was not directly relevant to evidence presented at trial. The court noted that no foundation was presented that it was discoverable or potentially relevant in relation to evidence adduced at trial.

The court explicitly stated, “Accordingly, the People bear no burden in this procedural and factual context to supply this material at all inasmuch as it was not in their possession or control and the victim objected to turning it over based on personal privacy rights.”