From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mackey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1998
249 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 6, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

After a jury trial, the defendant and his codefendant, Everad Salomon, were convicted of first and second degree robbery in connection with a gunpoint robbery on a Queens street. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant's conviction must be reversed, however, because he was substantially prejudiced by the People's failure to provide certain Rosario material related to a critical aspect of the complainant's testimony until after she had been cross-examined. As a result of the People's delay in providing the material — a record book maintained by the complainant which was in the People's control — damaging testimony was unwittingly elicited during her cross-examination. The court refused to strike the testimony, but instead gave the jury an adverse inference charge regarding a different document which the People had failed to produce.

Rosario material must be provided at a time when it meaningfully can be used to prepare cross-examination. "The fairness concept embodied in the Rosario rule cannot be said to have been satisfied when pretrial statements revealing a potential trap for the cross-examiner are furnished to defense counsel only after the trap has sprung" ( People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 159). Here, the prosecutor deliberately withheld information which was likely to be elicited on cross-examination and would be damaging to the defense. Consequently, reversal is required ( see, People v. Perez, supra).

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant's remaining contentions.

O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mackey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1998
249 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Mackey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DEREK MACKEY, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 6, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 879

Citing Cases

People v. Watson

, People v. Goins, 73 N.Y.2d 989), that damaging testimony was unwittingly elicited as a result of the delay…

People v. Salomon

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not…