From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Barrigar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 25, 1997
238 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

April 25, 1997

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Pursuant to a remittal order of this Court, County Court conducted an in camera inspection of the notes of the prosecutor to determine whether they contained summaries of witness statements ( see, People v Barrigar, 233 A.D.2d 845). The court concluded that the notes of the prosecutor do not contain summaries of witness statements but contain only questions for the witnesses prepared by the prosecutor. The notes have been submitted to this Court, and we agree with the court's conclusion. The notes are the work product of an attorney and do not constitute Rosario material. (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.)


Summaries of

People v. Barrigar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 25, 1997
238 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Barrigar

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONALD R. BARRIGAR…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Apr 25, 1997

Citations

238 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 548

Citing Cases

Barrigar v. Couture

As a result, Judge Mulroy concluded that these notes were privileged attorney work product. See…