From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1993
190 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 1, 1993

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


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

On the morning after the defendant's arrest, one of the arresting officers, who later testified at trial, was separately interviewed by two Assistant District Attorneys. The officer informed both of these individuals that while he and a fellow officer were guarding the defendant at the hospital following his arrest the previous night, the defendant told them that had his machine gun not jammed, he would have "sprayed the police officers like Raid sprays roaches" or "bugs". Both Assistant District Attorneys made written copies of the officer's statements. At trial the People were permitted to place these facts in evidence on re-direct examination of the officer in order to rebut the defendant's assertions that this officer and others had fabricated the defendant's alleged hospital statements in retaliation for the defendant having filed a claim of police brutality, false arrest, and malicious prosecution against these officers. The defense counsel subsequently moved for a mistrial, asserting that the sole written account he had received of the defendant's hospital statement was a voluntary disclosure form dated almost two months after the defendant's arrest. Counsel argued that had he received a written account of the arresting officer's assertions concerning the defendant's statement recorded only hours after the defendant's arrest, he never would have pursued the line of cross-examination that he did. The prosecutor could not definitely say that the documents had been included in the Rosario package delivered to the defense counsel, and the trial court found that the documents prepared by the Assistant District Attorneys after interviewing the officer-witness only hours after the defendant's arrest were not forwarded to the defense counsel prior to trial. While there was reference to the statements in question in the officer's pre-trial testimony, this did not mitigate the People's obligation to nevertheless turn them over prior to the trial proper (see, People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 64; cf., People v Toro, 168 A.D.2d 400; People v Rogelio, 160 A.D.2d 359, affd 79 N.Y.2d 843; see also, People v Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 160). Because the defendant's ability to effectively cross-examine the People's witnesses was substantially prejudiced by the People's failure in this regard, he is entitled to a new trial (see, CPL 240.45; People v Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 159, supra; see also, People v Goins, 73 N.Y.2d 989; People v Thompson, 71 N.Y.2d 918). Eiber, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1993
190 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES SMITH, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 531

Citing Cases

People v. Vacante

At a pretrial hearing, a witness made reference to the audiotapes forming the basis of the defendant's…

People v. Mitchell

However, contrary to the People's contentions, the prejudice to the defendant was not obviated by the…