From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 1994
209 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 7, 1994

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, the investigating detective testified that during his interview with the complainant he took notes on scratch paper which were discarded after the contents were placed in the typewritten report. Recognizing this Rosario violation (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866), the defendant moved to strike the detective's testimony. The Supreme Court declined to impose this sanction and, instead, issued an adverse inference charge with respect to the detective. On appeal, the defendant posits that the court erred in not striking the detective's testimony. However, this contention is without merit.

Just as the People have a duty to produce material pursuant to People v. Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286, supra), so to are they charged with a concomitant obligation to preserve such material until a request for disclosure is made (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940). Further, where the People fail to exercise due care in preserving Rosario material and the defendant is prejudiced thereby, the court must impose an appropriate sanction (see, People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 955; People v. Martinez, supra). The determination as to what constitutes "`an appropriate sanction'" is left to the sound discretion of trial court (People v. Wallace, supra, at 955; People v. Martinez, supra). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court's adverse inference charge was an appropriate sanction (see, People v. Lawley, 196 A.D.2d 890; see also, People v Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929, 931; People v. Martinez, supra).

Moreover, upon review of the record, we find that the trial court did not improvidently interject itself into the questioning of the victim (see, People v. Arthur, 186 A.D.2d 661, 663; Matter of William T., 182 A.D.2d 766, 767).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Walker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 1994
209 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEDELL WALKER…

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

Date published: Nov 7, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 449

Citing Cases

People v. Page

In any event, he was present when the defense counsel reargued the issue and he had the opportunity to…

People v. Bell

We do not believe that the typewritten complaint report, which was furnished at trial, can be considered to…