THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. JEFFREY YOUNG, APPELLANT.
79 N.Y.2d 365, 591 N.E.2d 1163, 582 N.Y.S.2d 977 (1992).
April 7, 1992
2 No. 52
Decided April 7, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Mitchell J. Briskey, for Appellant.
Caroline R. Donhauser, for Respondent.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York County, amicus
curiae.
TITONE, J:
In this case, the Appellate Division relied on what it perceived as
the "common sense limits" of the Rosario rule as a basis for affirming
a conviction notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to disclose an
"unusual occurrence report." The issue is whether the report contained
statements of a trial witness that would constitute Rosario material.
Defendant's appeal also requires us to consider whether a "common
sense" exception to the Rosario-Consolazio-Jones doctrine should be
recognized when the reviewing court deems the information in the
undisclosed putative Rosario material too insubstantial or trivial to
warrant the reversal of a conviction.
Defendant was charged with murdering an individual named Booker,
ostensibly to prevent Booker from revealing another crime that the two
men had committed together. The People's primary witness, Marie Somie,
defendant's girlfriend, testified that defendant and his brother
killed Booker in the house that she and defendant shared and then sent
the family to a movie while he disposed of the body. According to
Somie, who had not personally seen the killing or the deceased's body,
defendant had described the details of the crime to her and then, when
she returned from the movie, told her of how he had wrapped Booker's
body in a plastic bag and taken it to the dump. The body was
subsequently discovered at the dump by a passerby, and the police were
immediately contacted.
Several police officers, including Officer Serra and Detective Daniel,
both of whom testified at trial, responded to the call. Daniel, who
was the detective assigned to investigate the crime, attempted
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. JEFFREY YOUNG, APPELLANT.
the Appellate Division relied on what it perceived as the "common sense limits" of the
The issue is whether the report contained statements of a trial witness that would constitute
Defendant's appeal also requires us to consider whether a "common sense" exception to the
Defendant was charged with murdering an individual named Booker, ostensibly to prevent Booker
The People's primary witness, Marie Somie, defendant's girlfriend, testified that defendant
According to Somie, who had not personally seen the killing or the deceased's body, defendant
Daniel, who was the detective assigned to investigate the crime, attempted unsuccessfully to
The defense took the position at trial that Somie had fabricated the entire story because she
In response, the People argued, among other things, that no Rosario violation had been proven
Further, because, in the court's view, the report "in no way affected the credibility of the
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied, in part, on People v Ranghelle (69 NY2d 56,
Initially, contrary to the Appellate Division's conclusion, the undisclosed report was not
While we have recognized an "exception" to the Rosario rule of mandatory disclosure for
Finally, since the purpose of Rosario disclosure is to provide the defense with material for
Although the rope-burn marks were mentioned in the autopsy report, that report was not
The withheld documents also omitted several details contained in the other reports prepared
Since this Court's decision in People v Consolazio (supra), we have adhered to the view that
Although Detective Daniel, who was one of the testifying officers, had been the detective
|
