midpage

People v. BarcliftPeople v. Barclift

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jun 6, 1996
Reporters:
, , ,

*195The trial court properly denied defense counsel’s request for an unredacted copy of the undercover’s ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍daily activity report since it did not constitute Rosario material. The undercover’s direct testimony concerned the details of the pre-7:30.A.M. preparation meeting with other officers and the post-ll:30 a.m. buy and bust ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍operation resulting in defendant’s arrest; he never testified as to any other drug buys that may have occurred on other stops made by the officers that morning. Defendant contends, for ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍example, that “if the report indicated that the previous stops had failed to result in buys, counsel could [have used] that to suggest that, in this case, the officers ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍were just trying to make a collar”. However, this speculation about possible impeachment use of report entries that were not relevant to the subject matter of the witness’s testimony does ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍not invoke Rosario concerns (People v Watkins, 157 AD2d 301, 313). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Barclift
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jun 6, 1996
Citations: 228 A.D.2d 194; 642 N.Y.S.2d 902; 642 N.Y.2d 902; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6365
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
Log In