People v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 20 November 1990 |
| Citation | 563 N.Y.S.2d 722,565 N.E.2d 471,76 N.Y.2d 953 |
| Parties | , 565 N.E.2d 471 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark WALLACE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 153 A.D.2d 766, 545 N.Y.S.2d 48, should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
Defendant has been convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance, third degree. At trial, the undercover officer testified that he wrote defendant's description as he was broadcasting it over the police radio, and the arresting officer stated that he recorded the description as he was receiving that broadcast. The undercover officer further testified that he performed a postarrest "drive by" identification of defendant; that he made two subsequent drug purchases; and that he prepared "buy" reports on all three drug purchases later that evening. Both officers admitted that they discarded the written descriptions following defendant's arrest.
On this appeal, we do not consider whether the notes actually constitute Rosario material because the People do not dispute that point (see, People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929, 528 N.Y.S.2d 808, 524 N.E.2d 129; People v. Gilligan, 39 N.Y.2d 769, 384 N.Y.S.2d 778, 349 N.E.2d 879). Similarly, the People do not contend that the officers exercised due care in preserving these notes. Rather, their sole argument here is that defendant was not prejudiced by the discarding of this material and we limit our review to that question.
Under the facts of this case defendant was impermissibly prejudiced. The written descriptions would have been helpful to defendant in cross-examining the officers, given the importance of the identification issue in the case, and the arresting officer's testimony on direct examination that he wrote down a description of defendant as it came over the radio. The undercover officer's claim that he incorporated the description of defendant into his "buy" report did not alleviate that prejudice. There is no way to know whether the description contained in the "buy" report matched those contained in the lost notes. This concern seems especially apt considering that the "buy" report was prepared after the defendant's arrest, and after the undercover officer had performed a confirmatory "drive by" id...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jackson
...62, 354 N.E.2d 801. The Court makes an adverse inference from the fact that the former ADA destroyed his notes (People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 563 N.Y.S.2d 722, 565 N.E.2d 471). c) Similarly, the lack of any Rosario material regarding the conversations between Detective Dugan and the var......
-
Rivera v. Conway
...the trial court may impose sanctions only when the evidence could have materially altered the verdict. People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 563 N.Y.S.2d 722, 565 N.E.2d 471 (N.Y.1990). The trial court has the discretion to make this determination, based on the cumulative evidence and the missi......
-
People v. Joseph
...993, 538 N.E.2d 345; People v. Consolazio, supra, at 454, 387 N.Y.S.2d 62, 354 N.E.2d 801). Indeed, in People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 955, 563 N.Y.S.2d 722, 565 N.E.2d 471, where the undisclosed document was unavailable for inspection, we stressed that the document's absence made it impo......
-
People v. Banch
...determining whether the trial court acted within the bounds of its discretion in selecting a sanction (see, People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 955, 563 N.Y.S.2d 722, 565 N.E.2d 471; People v. Martinez, supra, 71 N.Y.2d at 940, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134). Dismissal of the charges is an......
-
15.2 - III. Preparation For Cross-Examination—Rosario Material
...48 N.Y.2d 144, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5 (1979). [2107] . People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813 (1988).[2108] . People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 563 N.Y.S.2d 722 (1990); People v. Perrin, 163 A.D.2d 809, 559 N.Y.S.2d 67 (4th Dep’t 1990); People v. Diaz, 169 A.D.2d 776, 565 N.Y.S.2d 141 ......