People v. Rios
| Decision Date | 27 April 1992 |
| Citation | 582 N.Y.S.2d 798,182 A.D.2d 843 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Carlos RIOS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Amy Donner, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Roseann B. Mackechnie, and Michael Napolitano, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, EIBER and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered December 4, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On the evening of May 3, 1989, the defendant sold a glassine envelope of heroin to an undercover officer during a so-called "buy and bust" operation near the intersection of Knickerbocker Avenue and Troutman Street in Brooklyn. While this sale was taking place, the undercover officer's partner made a separate narcotics purchase from several other individuals on the same street corner. After the sales were completed, both officers returned to their vehicle and transmitted descriptions of the suspects to their back-up team. The back-up team then arrested the defendant and three other individuals.
Shortly before the commencement of trial, the prosecutor agreed to provide defense counsel with "buy" reports concerning the three individuals who had been arrested by the same back-up team as the one that had arrested the defendant. The prosecutor refused, however, to turn over any additional police documents concerning these individuals, contending that such documents bore no relationship to the defendant's case. The trial court agreed, and denied an application by the defendant for all police "paperwork" pertaining to the other individuals arrested with him.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court's refusal to compel the prosecution to produce the additional police documents concerning the three individuals arrested with him violated the Rosario rule and constituted per se reversible error. We disagree. CPL 240.45(1)(a), which codifies the Rosario rule, requires the prosecutor to disclose to the defendant "any written or recorded statement * * * made by a person whom the prosecutor intends to call as a witness at trial, and which relates to the subject matter of the witness's testimony". However, since the "only purpose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lopez
... ... Indeed, it contains no factual assertions about or descriptions of the drug transaction and arrest involved herein (see, e.g., People v. Watkins, 157 A.D.2d 301, 556 N.Y.S.2d 541; People v. Mills, 142 A.D.2d 653, 530 N.Y.S.2d 593; People v. Rios, 182 [196 A.D.2d 665] A.D.2d 843, 582 N.Y.S.2d 798). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the motion, finding that there had been no Rosario violation (see, People v. Miller, 183 A.D.2d 790, 583 N.Y.S.2d 517; cf., People v. Vacante, 187 A.D.2d 470, 589 N.Y.S.2d 894) ... ...
-
People v. Bryant
... ... The right to inspect statements of a prosecution witness is limited to those statements relevant to the subject matter of the witness's testimony (see, People v. Rios, 182 A.D.2d 843, 582 N.Y.S.2d 798; see also, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 148-149, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697). As no testimony concerning the negative identification of another individual was elicited during the direct examination of the prosecution witness, the People were not obligated ... ...
-
People v. Bailey
... ... The trial court therefore did not err in refusing to compel the prosecution to produce them. The right to inspect statements of a prosecution witness is limited to those statements relevant to the subject matter of the witness's testimony (see, People v. Rios, 182 A.D.2d 843, 582 N.Y.S.2d 798; see also, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 148-149, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697). As no testimony concerning the arrests of other individuals was elicited during the direct examination of the prosecution witnesses, the People were not obligated to make the ... ...
-
People v. Moustakis
... ... The witness, however, claimed to have forgotten the details of many of his other past crimes. The details of these crimes were recorded in the withheld debriefing notes and related to the subject matter of the witness' direct testimony (see, People v. Rios, 182 A.D.2d 843, 582 N.Y.S.2d 798). Accordingly, it is clear that had the defense had access to ... ...