Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lawford GOURGUE, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered February 20, 1996, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant contends that a list of questions prepared by the prosecutor during a pretrial interview with the complaining witness constituted Rosario material (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881), which should have been disclosed to the defense. We agree. It is well settled that “[t]he character of a statement is not to be determined by the manner in which it is recorded” (People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 453, 387 N.Y.S.2d 62, 354 N.E.2d 801), and that the defendant is entitled to witness statements in whatever form they take (see, People v. Cavallerio, 71 A.D.2d 338, 344, 422 N.Y.S.2d 691; see also, People v. Machado, 228 A.D.2d 700, 645 N.Y.S.2d 811). Here, the prosecutor incorporated factual statements made by the complainant into a list of proposed questions with the admitted intent of circumventing the Rosario rule by recording the statements in question form. Since the material prepared by the prosecutor clearly included the complainant's statements and was not merely attorney work product, the court erred in denying the defendant's request for disclosure (see, People v. Consolazio, supra; People v. Barrigar, 233 A.D.2d 845, 649 N.Y.S.2d 756; People v. Cubilla, 181 A.D.2d 788, 581 N.Y.S.2d 90; cf., People v. Shaw, 212 A.D.2d 745, 622 N.Y.S.2d 599; People v. Gallardo, 196 A.D.2d 551, 601 N.Y.S.2d 150; People v. Roberts, 178 A.D.2d 622, 577 N.Y.S.2d 672). Accordingly, the defendant must be granted a new trial.
In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 05, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)