People v. Poole
| Decision Date | 18 October 1979 |
| Parties | , 397 N.E.2d 697 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leroy POOLE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The issue on this appeal is whether a defendant in a criminal case, after a witness has testified against him, has the unqualified right to inspect the prosecutor's file in order to determine whether relevant pretrial statements of the prosecution witness are being improperly withheld by the prosecutor from the defense.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Defendant Poole was arrested by Detective Thomas Rynne of the New York City Police Department and charged with various crimes including murder in the second degree. After being informed repeatedly of his constitutional rights, defendant made several incriminating statements to Detective Rynne and to other law enforcement officials. Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress these statements and a hearing was held to determine the admissibility of defendant's multiple admissions and confessions.
At that hearing, Detective Rynne was called as a witness by the People to testify both as to the substance of and the circumstances surrounding the admissions which defendant had made in his presence. After the prosecutor completed his questioning defense counsel made a request for Rosario * material before commencing his cross-examination. In response, the prosecutor turned over Detective Rynne's memo book and represented that the memo book was, in fact, the only Rosario material "relative to the officer's testimony". The defense counsel then requested "to see every document that the officer filled out", reasoning that it was "for (him) to determine whether a document is relevant". The prosecutor responded by asserting once again that he had turned over all the Rosario material "relative to (the) testimony of the officer." In addition, the prosecutor stated that defense counsel, by making this request, was seeking disclosure of the entire investigative file "under the guise of Rosario ". At that point, counsel for codefendant Henry Jordan suggested that the court review the prosecutor's file In camera, the prosecutor joining in that request. Defendant's counsel, however, did not assent to this request, but instead maintained that it was his unqualified right to inspect the file and to determine for himself what material would be relevant. The court refused to allow him to do so.
As the cross-examination progressed, Detective Rynne, at the request of defense counsel, used a police report to refresh his recollection. When the contents of that document were revealed to defense counsel, it became apparent that the report related in some manner to the admissions made by defendant. As a result, counsel again requested that he be allowed to inspect the prosecutor's entire file. The prosecutor acknowledged that his file contained many documents referring to defendant's admissions and that it also included many documents authored by Detective Rynne, but maintained that all pretrial statements of Detective Rynne which related to the subject matter of his testimony at the hearing had already been turned over to the defense. On the basis of this representation, the court once again denied defendant's request to inspect the file.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ruled that the statements made by defendant were given voluntarily to the police. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree in satisfaction of the entire indictment. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed that conviction.
It is a well-established rule that a defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to examine a prosecution witness' prior statements, which relate to the witness' testimony, for impeachment purposes before commencing his cross-examination. (People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, Supra ; see Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103.) However, we are not concerned in this case with this salutary rule which, by its very nature, presupposes the existence of relevant prior statements of a prosecution witness. Rather, the question before us is whether a defendant, through his attorney, may inspect the prosecutor's file to determine, in the first instance, what material, if any, contained therein is "relevant" and, therefore, subject to use by the defendant during cross-examination.
At the time of defendant's request for Rosario material, the prosecutor had represented to the court that the officer's memo book, duly turned over to the defense, constituted the only relevant writing of the prosecution witness falling within the Rosario rule. As stated before, the defendant responded that he should not be bound by the prosecutor's representation and that defense counsel must "make that determination, (of relevance) and not the District Attorney * * * not even the Court." In effect, defendant asked the court to afford him the right to examine all reports, statements and papers contained in the prosecutor's file so that he might determine for himself whether any such material was useful to him. This, the trial court properly declined to do.
To endorse such a position would allow a defendant to embark on an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jackson
... ... Juviler, 65 N.Y.2d 182, 490 N.Y.S.2d 764, 480 N.E.2d 378) ... e) In People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, p. 149, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697, the court stated [145 Misc.2d 1030] " * * * the representation of a prosecutor, as an officer of the court, ought generally to suffice to determine the threshold issue * * *." This principle forms the foundation of many decisions by a court ... ...
-
People v. Jones
...witnesses at trial' " (People v. Perez, supra, 65 N.Y.2d at 158, 490 N.Y.S.2d 747, 480 N.E.2d 361, quoting People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 149, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697). In People v. Consolazio (supra), People v. Perez (supra) and People v. Ranghelle (supra), we concluded that given ......
-
People v. Arthur
...formal hearing in counsel's presence as to whether Brady material is in the People's possession. (Id.; see People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 149, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697 [1979] ). In this case, hundreds of documents have been recovered from the crime scene and vouchered by the police. ......
-
People v. Slochowsky
...forth on the record the following cases: People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697; People v. Andre W., 44 N.Y.2d 179, 404 N.Y.S.2d 578, 375 N.E.2d 758; People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 262 N.Y.S.......