People v. Young
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Titone, J.
In this case, the Appellate Division relied on what it perceived to be the "commonsense limits” of the Rosario rule as a basis for affirming a conviction notwithstanding the prosecution’s failure to disclose an "unusual occurrence report.” The issue is whether the report contained statements of a trial witness that would constitute Rosario material. Defendant’s appeal also requires us to consider whether a "commonsense” exception to the Rosario-Consolazio-Jones doctrine should be recognized when the reviewing court deems the information in the undisclosed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. RanghelleNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- People v. ConsolazioNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- People v. NovoaNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- People v. BanchNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. DamianoNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- People v. FeerickNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- People v. JosephNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- People v. MacHadoNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.