Requires a court to evaluate whether the prosecution has established that the certificate of compliance or supplemental certificate of compliance was filed in good faith after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to learn of the discovery.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A7936
SPONSOR: Romero TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to challenges to
or questions related to certificates of compliance
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
The purpose of this legislation is to codify standards by which judges
would evaluate the prosecution's efforts to comply with their discovery
obligations. It seeks to ensure that judges consider all of the
prosecutor's efforts and the complexity of the case when determining
whether the prosecution exercised due diligence before filing a certif-
icate of compliance. Specifically, this bill would codify the factors
laid out by the Court of Appeals in People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200 (2023).
These factors provide a roadmap from which judges may fairly assess the
prosecution's diligence.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one of this bill would amend Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §
245.50 to add a new subdivision that would codify People v. Bay, 41 NY3d
200 (2023). The bill would specifically codify the portion of the case
that articulates the factors a trial court is to consider, in instances
of late disclosure, when determining whether the prosecution exercised
diligence in fulfilling its disclosure obligations. These factors are
aimed at evaluating the prosecutor's efforts to learn of and provide
discoverable material prior to certifying compliance pursuant to subdi-
vision one of section 245.50.
Section 2 sets the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
As New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, stated in Bay
concerning CPL Article 245, "the statute nowhere defines 'due dili-
gence." But as the court explained, "it is a familiar and flexible stan-
dard that requires the People 'to make reasonable efforts' to comply
with statutory directives." id. at 211. Adding the Court's further defi-
nition to the statute in this context would help assure that trial
courts properly interpret the law. The court also clarified that good
faith alone is not enough, stating, "the plain terms of the statute make
clear that while good faith is required, it is not sufficient standing
alone and cannot cure a lack of diligence." id. at 212.
In an effort to provide a definition for trial courts to follow, the Bay
decision set forth a non-exclusive list of factors that are relevant to
an evaluation of whether a prosecutor has exercised the requisite dili-
gence. Those factors are not currently codified. But, when trial courts
faithfully apply the Bay factors in evaluating prosecutors' efforts to
fulfill their discovery obligations, and determine that a prosecutor has
been diligent, cases are not automatically dismissed despite the late
disclosure of evidence.
This bill is offered to assist judges in criminal proceedings across the
state when a dispute arises concerning prosecutorial diligence in
obtaining and sharing discovery. This bill would address concerns
expressed by some New York prosecutors and ensure the furtherance of
justice and equity in our criminal legal system. The Court of Appeals,
in People v. Bay, stated that "there is no rule of 'strict liability;'
that is, the statute does not require or anticipate a 'perfect prosecu-
tor.'" The Court explained, however, that the case should have been
dismissed because the prosecutor was unable to explain why they
originally told the court the material didn't exist or why it took them
months to provide basic evidence to the defense. The Court found that
they were not diligent in their efforts to learn of and provide discov-
erable material, as the statute requires. The court also clarified that
good faith alone is not enough, "...the plain terms of the statute make
clear that while good faith is required, it is not sufficient standing
alone and cannot cure a lack of diligence"
Since diligence is not defined by the current statute, in its decision,
the Bay Court listed factors that it considered relevant to an evalu-
ation of whether a prosecutor was diligent. Those factors are not
currently codified. But, when trial courts faithfully apply the Bay
factors in evaluating prosecutors' efforts to fulfill their discovery
obligations, cases are not dismissed based on "technicalities." There-
fore, this bill is offered to assist judges in criminal proceedings
across the state with the assessment of prosecutorial diligence in
obtaining and sharing discovery. This bill will thereby address the
repeated concerns of NY prosecutors and ensure the furtherance of
justice and equity in our criminal legal system.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
7936
2025-2026 Regular Sessions
IN ASSEMBLY
April 16, 2025
___________
Introduced by M. of A. ROMERO, WALKER -- read once and referred to the
Committee on Codes
AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to challenges to
or questions related to certificates of compliance
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-bly, do enact as follows:
1 Section 1. Section 245.50 of the criminal procedure law is amended by
2 adding a new subdivision 5 to read as follows:
3 5. In rendering a decision on a motion filed pursuant to paragraph (a)
4 of subdivision four of this section, the court must evaluate whether the
5 prosecution has established that the certificate of compliance or
6 supplemental certificate of compliance was filed in good faith after
7 exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to learn of the
8 discovery required by subdivision one of section 245.20 of this article.
9 For purposes of this article, relevant factors for assessing due dili-
10 gence include, but are not limited to: the efforts made by the prose-
11 cution to comply with the requirements of this article, the timing of
12 the prosecution's efforts, the volume of discovery provided and volume
13 of outstanding discovery, the complexity of the case, how obvious any
14 missing material would likely have been to a reasonable prosecutor after
15 reviewing the case and other materials disclosed, the explanation for
16 any discovery lapse, and the prosecution's response when apprised of any
17 missing discovery. The prosecution's efforts shall not be deemed reason-
18 able or diligent if the prosecution has not performed its duties to
19 evaluate and disclose evidence under the state and federal consti-
20 tutions.
21 § 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[] is old law to be omitted.
LBD11601-01-5
