From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1992
182 A.D.2d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 20, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

On the evening of July 2, 1987, the defendant allegedly sold a vial of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer in the entranceway of a Brooklyn apartment building. After making the purchase, the undercover officer immediately returned to his car and transmitted a description of the suspected seller to his back-up team. A member of the back-up team then jotted down the undercover officer's description of the seller on a piece of scrap paper, which was subsequently discarded.

The defendant contends that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion by denying his request for the imposition of a sanction based upon the failure of the back-up officer to preserve the scrap paper containing a contemporaneous description of the suspected seller. We agree. The handwritten notes recording the undercover officer's description of the suspect constituted Rosario material (see, People v Wallace,

76 N.Y.2d 953; People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v Dyla, 169 A.D.2d 777), and might have assisted counsel in cross examining the undercover officer (see, People v Mack, 180 A.D.2d 824; People v Moss, 176 A.D.2d 826). Moreover, contrary to the People's contention, the fact that the undercover officer retained his own handwritten notes, which merely described the suspect as "J.D. Green Cap", did not serve to alleviate the prejudice to the defendant. Where the People fail to exercise due care in preserving Rosario material, and the defendant is prejudiced thereby, the trial court must impose an appropriate sanction (see, People v Martinez, supra). Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, we find that the court's failure to impose such a sanction warrants a new trial.

In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1992
182 A.D.2d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM SMITH…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 499

Citing Cases

People v. Minihan [2d Dept 1999

The handwritten notes destroyed by the police officer regarding the accident scene constituted Rosario…

People v. Minihan

The handwritten notes destroyed by the police officer regarding the accident scene constituted Rosario…