People v. Barrigar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barrigar

238 A.D.2d 932, 661 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 932 (People v. Barrigar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Barrigar, 238 A.D.2d 932, 661 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Pursuant to a remittal order of this Court, County Court conducted an in camera inspection of the notes of the prosecutor to determine whether [933]*933they contained summaries of witness statements (see, People v Barrigar, 233 AD2d 845). The court concluded that the notes of the prosecutor do not contain summaries of witness statements but contain only questions for the witnesses prepared by the prosecutor. The notes have been submitted to this Court, and we agree with the court’s conclusion. The notes are the work product of an attorney and do not constitute Rosario material. (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Pursuant to a remittal order of this Court, County Court conducted an in camera inspection of the notes of the prosecutor to determine whether [933]*933they contained summaries of witness statements (see, People v Barrigar, 233 AD2d 845). The court concluded that the notes of the prosecutor do not contain summaries of witness statements but contain only questions for the witnesses prepared by the prosecutor. The notes have been submitted to this Court, and we agree with the court’s conclusion. The notes are the work product of an attorney and do not constitute Rosario material. (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 932, 661 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barrigar-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack