People v. Jonathan Smith
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure and discovery sanctions, specifically whether the prosecution could be sanctioned for deleted text messages that were never in its possession or control.
Erie County Court held that the People failed to exercise due diligence and reasonable efforts to discover deleted text messages between the complainant and defendant, and dismissed the indictment as a sanction under CPL 245.80 (1) (b) [remedy or sanction when discoverable material has been lost or destroyed and may have contained relevant information].
The Appellate Division reversed the order dismissing the indictment, denied the motion for sanctions, reinstated the indictment, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
The appellate court held that the deleted messages were not discoverable under CPL 245.20 [requiring disclosure of material in the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution or persons under its direction or control] because they were never in the prosecution's possession, custody, or control. Once the People learned of the deletions, they promptly notified the defense, satisfying their continuing duty.
Background
The prosecution disclosed screenshots of text messages between defendant and the complainant that were in its possession. Shortly before trial, the complainant informed the People that she had deleted some messages before taking those screenshots. The People immediately informed defense counsel. Defendant then moved to dismiss the indictment or, alternatively, preclude the text messages and any reference to them as a discovery sanction.
Lower Court Decision
County Court concluded that the People had not acted with due diligence in discovering the deleted messages and initially ordered preclusion. Upon reargument, however, it dismissed the indictment as a sanction for the alleged discovery violation.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division first rejected defendant's argument that the People lacked standing to appeal, holding that the People were aggrieved by the dismissal of the indictment under CPL 450.20 (12) [authorizing a People's appeal from an order dismissing an indictment]. On the merits, the court held that the deleted text messages were not within the prosecution's possession, custody, or control, nor within that of persons under its direction or control, and therefore were not subject to mandatory disclosure under CPL 245.20. Because the materials were not discoverable, no sanction under CPL 245.80 (1) (b) was warranted. The court further held that the People complied with CPL 245.20 (2) [continuing obligation to disclose discoverable material] by promptly notifying the defense once they learned the messages had been deleted.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that New York criminal discovery obligations under article 245 extend only to material actually within the prosecution's possession, custody, or control, or that of persons acting under the prosecution's direction or control. A defendant cannot obtain sanctions for loss or destruction of evidence that never fell within that statutory discovery universe.
Deleted evidence held only by a complainant does not automatically become the People's discovery responsibility. If the prosecution never possessed or controlled the material and promptly discloses what it later learns, dismissal or other sanctions are improper.