Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant contends that a list of questions prepared by the prosecutor during a pretrial interview with the complaining witness constituted Rosario material ( see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286), which should have been disclosed to the defense. We agree. It is well settled that "[t]he character of a statement is not to be determined by the manner in which it is recorded" ( People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 453), and that the defendant is entitled to witness statements in whatever form they take ( see, People v. Cavallerio, 71 A.D.2d 338, 344; see also, People v. Machado, 228 A.D.2d 700). Here, the prosecutor incorporated factual statements made by the complainant into a list of proposed questions with the admitted intent of circumventing the Rosario rule by recording the statements in question form. Since the material prepared by the prosecutor clearly included the complainant's statements and was not merely attorney work product, the court erred in denying the defendant's request for disclosure ( see, People v. Consolazio, supra; People v Barrigar, 233 A.D.2d 845; People v. Cubilla, 181 A.D.2d 788; cf., People v. Shaw, 212 A.D.2d 745; People v. Gallardo, 196 A.D.2d 551; People v. Roberts, 178 A.D.2d 622). Accordingly, the defendant must be granted a new trial.
In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.
Mangano, P.J., Pizzuto, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.