People v. Contreras

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a trial court acted within its discretion in conducting an initial ex parte review of a complainant's notes, permitting defense counsel to review and contest their exclusion, and restricting counsel from disclosing the notes' contents to the defendant. The court concluded that the notes were irrelevant and were not Rosario or Brady material, and affirmed the Appellate Division's order affirming the defendant's convictions.

Holdings

1. When a trial court chooses, although not required to do so, to hold a hearing on whether evidence constitutes Rosario or Brady material, it has broad discretion to select reasonable procedures for conducting that hearing, and an appellate court will not second-guess a reasonable procedural choice.
2. A defendant's right to be personally present at critical stages of trial does not require the defendant's presence at a hearing that is noncritical and, as a matter of law, unnecessary, particularly where the defendant's presence would not contribute to the fairness of the procedure.
3. Communication between attorney and client, although generally unrestricted, is not constitutionally protected when the communication would disclose an irrelevant, embarrassing, and potentially inflammatory document having nothing to do with the case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court used permissible procedures in determining, through an initial ex parte review and a subsequent hearing attended by defense counsel but not defendant, that the complainant's notes were not Rosario or Brady material.
2. Whether defendant had a constitutional right to be personally present at the hearing concerning the notes.
3. Whether the court's restriction preventing defense counsel from disclosing the contents of the irrelevant and potentially inflammatory notes to defendant violated defendant's constitutional right to attorney-client communication.

Disposition

affirmed