People v. Quinones

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Quinones

538 N.E.2d 345, 73 N.Y.2d 988, 540 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 392

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 6, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 538 N.E.2d 345 (People v. Quinones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Quinones, 538 N.E.2d 345, 73 N.Y.2d 988, 540 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 392 (N.Y. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The defendant and Scott Horne were taken into custody following an altercation in a jewelry exchange. At the trial, the People did not dispute defense counsel’s right pursuant to People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286), to review the police officer’s memo book and the report relating to Horne’s arrest. Although the People stated that they would have the officer return with these items, and now contend that he did, all the record shows is that the officer returned to the courthouse and turned over other materials but not the memo book or the arrest report. Thus, on the record, with respect to these items, there was not a mere delay but a complete failure to comply with the Rosario rule and a new trial is required, as the Appellate Division held (People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56).

It would be inappropriate, in effect, to suspend final disposition of the appeal by remitting the case for a hearing to determine whether the items never disclosed, and not even in the record, are duplicate equivalents of the materials made available to defense counsel at trial. If the People intended to raise this issue to justify the nondisclosure, they should have included these items in the trial court record so that the point could be resolved on appeal in the normal course (see, e.g., People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446; People v Ranghelle, supra).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The defendant and Scott Horne were taken into custody following an altercation in a jewelry exchange. At the trial, the People did not dispute defense counsel’s right pursuant to People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286), to review the police officer’s memo book and the report relating to Horne’s arrest. Although the People stated that they would have the officer return with these items, and now contend that he did, all the record shows is that the officer returned to the courthouse and turned over other materials but not the memo book or the arrest report. Thus, on the record, with respect to these items, there was not a mere delay but a complete failure to comply with the Rosario rule and a new trial is required, as the Appellate Division held (People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56).

It would be inappropriate, in effect, to suspend final disposition of the appeal by remitting the case for a hearing to determine whether the items never disclosed, and not even in the record, are duplicate equivalents of the materials made available to defense counsel at trial. If the People intended to raise this issue to justify the nondisclosure, they should have included these items in the trial court record so that the point could be resolved on appeal in the normal course (see, e.g., People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446; People v Ranghelle, supra).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 N.E.2d 345, 73 N.Y.2d 988, 540 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quinones-ny-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack