PEOPLE v. MATTHEWS (2023)

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered July 14, 2016, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree and criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of one year, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for an in camera review of the memo books of two police officers to determine whether they contain Rosario material to which the defense was entitled at trial.

The victim testified that she spoke to two police officers who arrived at the scene following a 911 call, and that the officers wrote down what the victim said had occurred.  Notwithstanding the existence of other documents, which may have been prepared by an officer at the scene and contained statements by the victim, the court should have conducted an in camera review of the memo book of each of the responding officers, because defense counsel articulated a factual basis for believing that statements of the victim were recorded therein (see People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 149, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697 [1979]).

The People concede that a remand is necessary, but only for review of one officer's memo book.  While the record suggests that the other officer's entry may have consisted of just the address to which the police responded, the record is not entirely clear on this point, and the in camera review should extend to both memo books.