PEOPLE v ROGELIO - Legal Case Documents


\|

PEOPLE v ROGELIO

Keywords & Phrases

CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: PEOPLE, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>079_0843, Affirmance, Prosecutor, Rosario, Defense Counsel, Objection, Ny2d, Judge, Appellant, Request, Respondent, Memorandum, Supra, Jackson, Failure, Rights, Client, Concur, Rogelio, Writeup Sheet, Jury, Attention, Simons, Reverse, Jones, Ranghelle, Obligation, Statutory , ContentID: 120249008

Case Documents

1992-01-16

OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 120918

2 pages
HTML

Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages

Price: $ 19.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

AFFIRMANCE
PROSECUTOR
ROSARIO
DEFENSE COUNSEL
COURT
OBJECTION
NY2D
JUDGE
APPELLANT
REQUEST
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM
SUPRA
JACKSON
FAILURE
RIGHTS
CLIENT
ATTORNEY
CONCUR
ROGELIO
WRITEUP SHEET
JURY
ATTENTION
SIMONS
REVERSE
JONES
RANGHELLE
OBLIGATION
STATUTORY



  THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. JOHN ROGELIO, APPELLANT.

    79 N.Y.2d 843, 588 N.E.2d 83, 580 N.Y.S.2d 185 (1992).
    January 16, 1992

   1 No. 246
   Decided January 16, 1992
     _________________________________________________________________

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Barry D. Leiwant, for Appellant.
   James F. Mullen, for Respondent.

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

   Defendant claims that a new trial must be ordered because the
   prosecutor failed to produce certain Rosario material consisting of a
   writeup sheet containing statements of a prosecution witness, a police
   officer. After the trial court's instructions to the jury were
   completed, defense counsel stated, "with some reluctance", to the
   court for the first time that the prosecutor failed to provide him
   with the writeup sheet. Defense counsel asked for no relief but merely
   noted that he was informing the court "for the record because it has
   come to my attention". The prosecutor responded that he had told
   defense counsel before trial that he was welcome to the document, that
   he had forgotten to provide it and defense counsel had failed to
   remind him, and that there was nothing he could do at that point. With
   nothing more said on the matter, the court submitted the case to the
   jury to commence its deliberations.

   By failing to make an unambiguous objection when the Rosario violation
   was first noted and by indicating to the trial court through his
   equivocal statements that no remedy was desired, defendant has not
   preserved the issue for appellate review.
     _________________________________________________________________

   People v Rogelio

   No. 246

   SIMONS, J. (dissenting):

SNIPPETS:

THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. JOHN ROGELIO, APPELLANT.

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York

Defendant claims that a new trial must be ordered because the prosecutor failed to produce

After the trial court's instructions to the jury were completed, defense counsel stated,

Defense counsel asked for no relief but merely noted that he was informing the court "for the

By failing to make an unambiguous objection when the Rosario violation was first noted and by

The People failed to deliver Rosario material to defense counsel before the evidence was

Nevertheless, the majority has affirmed, holding unpreserved an objection which defendant had

Its decision substantially alters the statutory scheme codifying the Rosario rule, and the

Its affirmance under these circumstances can only confuse judges and practitio- ners alike.

Indeed, we have held that the People's obligation cannot be avoided even by good-faith but

Where the failure to produce occurs during a trial, however, neither the statute nor our

The mere fact that defendant's counsel did both in this case should not prejudice his rights.

The incongruity of the majority's ruling is obvious: the client of an attorney who requests

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock and Bellacosa concur.

Judge Simons dis- sents and votes to reverse in an opinion in which Judge Alexander concurs.


\|