People v. Wild Bill

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Stevens

    216 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 13 times

    Addressing next defendant's contention that reversal is required pursuant to People v. Rosario ( supra) due to the late disclosure of material recovered from the State Police, we note that reversal is not required unless the delay substantially prejudiced defendant ( see, People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610; People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937). As to the victim's sister, we do not find her prior statements to be Rosario material since she was not a witness for the People ( see, People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 59; People v. Lent, 204 A.D.2d 855, 855-856, lvs denied 84 N.Y.2d 869, sub nom. People v. Wild Bill, 84 N.Y.2d 873). As to the prior statements of the victim and his mother, we do not find a showing of prejudice since they both testified during their direct examinations to their initial denial of sexual abuse by defendant and defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine them. We further find that the People promptly turned over this material as soon as it was discovered ( cf., People v. Thompson, 71 N.Y.2d 918, 919-920).