People v. Stanley: Trial Courts Must Make On-the-Record Due-Diligence Findings When Late-Disclosed Evidence Calls a Certificate of Compliance into Question

Introduction

In People v Stanley (2026 NY Slip Op 00941 [3d Dept Feb. 19, 2026]), the Appellate Division, Third Department reviewed Theresa Stanley’s Albany County convictions for conspiracy in the second degree, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The prosecution’s case stemmed from a 2020 wiretap investigation into a cocaine-distribution operation associated with Jamar Brayboy. The People relied heavily on intercepted calls, a task force detective’s interpretation of coded drug terminology, surveillance observations, and the recovery of more than one-half ounce of cocaine from defendant during a planned “rip operation.”

The appeal presented two principal issues: (1) whether the proof was legally sufficient and whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence on the conspiracy, drug-possession, and child-endangerment counts; and (2) whether the trial court erred in its handling of a discovery problem that surfaced mid-trial—specifically, the late revelation that an arresting officer had active body-worn camera footage that had not been disclosed before trial, notwithstanding the People’s earlier filing of a certificate of compliance (COC).

Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department (1) rejected defendant’s legal-sufficiency and weight-of-the-evidence challenges, holding that the wiretap calls, surveillance, and defendant’s admitted possession of more than one-half ounce of cocaine supported the conspiracy theory and that involving her children in the narcotics-transaction events supported the endangering counts.

However, the Court (2) agreed with defendant that the trial court failed to perform the required statutory and decisional-law inquiry once belated disclosure of body-worn camera footage raised a question whether the People’s COC—and thus their statement of readiness—was valid. Rather than finally resolving the readiness/COC issue on the existing record, the Court held the appeal in abeyance, reserved decision, and remitted to Supreme Court for a determination whether the People exercised “due diligence” and made “reasonable inquiries” in fulfilling discovery obligations before filing the COC.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • People v George, 242 AD3d 1447 (3d Dept 2025): Cited for the legal-sufficiency standard—viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and asking whether a rational jury could find each element proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This case anchored the Court’s deferential posture on sufficiency review.
  • People v Adams, 201 AD3d 1031 (3d Dept 2022), lv denied 38 NY3d 948 (2022): Cited for the weight-of-the-evidence framework and later used as a comparison point on whether the jury could infer agreement to sell threshold quantities. The Court distinguished defendant’s arguments by emphasizing the repeated negotiations and defendant’s admitted possession.
  • People v Chambers, 185 AD3d 1141 (3d Dept 2020), lv denied 36 NY3d 1055 (2021); People v Johnson, 172 AD3d 1628 (3d Dept 2019), lv denied 34 NY3d 951 (2019): Both were relied upon to support the proposition that conspiratorial agreement and overt acts may be proven circumstantially, including through communications evidencing negotiated quantities and supply arrangements. Johnson also appeared in the weight analysis to illustrate that even when coded-language interpretation is contested, the jury may credit experienced law-enforcement testimony.
  • People v Minwalkulet, 198 AD3d 1290 (4th Dept 2021), lv denied 37 NY3d 1147 (2021): Cited to support the endangering-the-welfare-of-a-child convictions where a defendant’s conduct around narcotics activity exposes children to likely injury to their mental or moral welfare.
  • People v Pearson, 151 AD3d 1455 (3d Dept 2017), lv denied 30 NY3d 982 (2017); People v Williams, 138 AD3d 1233 (3d Dept 2016), lv denied 28 NY3d 939 (2016): Used as additional weight-of-the-evidence support for deference to jury credibility determinations in drug cases involving interpretive testimony and circumstantial proof.
  • People v Contompasis, 236 AD3d 138 (3d Dept 2025), lv denied 43 NY3d 1007 (2025): Cited for the foundational principle that CPL article 245 imposes automatic discovery and ties compliance to trial readiness, framing the policy rationale behind strict scrutiny of COCs.
  • People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 (2023): The controlling Court of Appeals authority on COC propriety and readiness. The Third Department invoked Bay for multiple key propositions: (i) a proper COC is a prerequisite to readiness; (ii) good-faith belated disclosure does not “cure” an initial lack of due diligence; (iii) the People bear the burden to show due diligence and reasonable inquiries; and (iv) when that burden is not met, the COC is improper and readiness is illusory, with CPL 30.30 consequences if time exceeds the statutory period. Bay also supplied the “holistic assessment” factors relevant to due diligence.
  • People v Graham, 233 AD3d 1361 (3d Dept 2024), lv denied 43 NY3d 944 (2025): Cited for the limiting principle that belated disclosure alone does not automatically render readiness illusory—thus the analysis turns on whether the People exercised due diligence in the first instance.
  • People v James, 229 AD3d 1008 (3d Dept 2024): Cited for the proposition that, even where the People offer a good-faith explanation for a discovery lapse, the trial court must still determine whether the lapse rendered the COC illusory; also cited as a remittal analogue.
  • People v Young, 243 AD3d 1303 (4th Dept 2025): Cited for articulating that due diligence is assessed holistically rather than through a rigid item-by-item approach, and for supporting remittal when the record lacks findings necessary for appellate review.
  • People v Coffey, 244 AD3d 1609 (3d Dept 2025): Cited as another remittal precedent where essential findings regarding discovery compliance/due diligence were absent.

Legal Reasoning

1. Sufficiency and Weight (Affirmed on the Merits of the Proof)

On conspiracy, the Court applied Penal Law §§ 105.15 and 105.20 (agreement to commit a class A felony plus an overt act), with the object felony framed as Penal Law § 220.41 (1) (sale of a narcotic drug of one-half ounce or more). The Court emphasized that conspiracies are rarely proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from conduct and communications. Here, repeated wiretapped negotiations for ounce-level quantities, evidence of an ongoing supplier relationship (including acknowledgement of thousands of dollars owed), surveillance of a meeting consistent with a delivery, defendant’s request to borrow a digital scale, and her possession of more than one-half ounce of cocaine during the “rip operation” collectively permitted a rational inference of an agreement and overt acts.

On endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]), the Court reasoned that defendant’s conduct placed her children into the immediate orbit of a narcotics transaction and its foreseeable consequences (police stop, separation, distress), supporting the “likely to be injurious” element, particularly as the record contained defendant’s own recorded acknowledgement that the children were distressed.

In the weight analysis, the Court recognized that an acquittal on other possession counts did not undermine the jury’s ability to credit the detective’s coded-language interpretations on the counts of conviction. While the Court noted it would not have been unreasonable for a jury to discount aspects of that interpretive testimony, it concluded that deference to the jury’s credibility determinations and a neutral review of the whole record supported the verdict.

2. Discovery, the COC, and Readiness (Remittal Required)

The opinion’s most consequential procedural holding concerns what a trial court must do when late-disclosed evidence emerges in a case where the People have already filed a COC and announced readiness. During cross-examination, a patrol officer disclosed that she had an active body-worn camera during defendant’s arrest. The People had previously represented they were unaware any such footage existed and had produced all discovery received from the police department.

Supreme Court denied a mistrial and offered remedies (recall the officer, play footage, missing-evidence instruction), but—critically— did not first determine on the record whether the People’s failure to disclose the footage earlier reflected a lack of due diligence and reasonable inquiries such that the original COC was “illusory,” undermining readiness.

The Third Department held that this was error in approach. Drawing from People v Bay, the Court reiterated:

  • Under CPL 245.20 (former [1]), the People must automatically disclose all discoverable items in the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution or those under its direction/control, including “electronic recordings . . . made or received in connection with the alleged criminal incident” (CPL 245.20 [1] [g]).
  • A COC under CPL 245.50 (former [1]) is not a ministerial filing; it affirms that the prosecutor exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to locate and disclose discoverable material.
  • Readiness under CPL 30.30 (former [5]) is intertwined with the COC: readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a good-faith COC, and the trial court has a duty to inquire on the record into actual readiness.
  • Good faith or later corrective disclosure cannot substitute for diligence at the time the COC was filed; the question is whether the People did what the statute required before certifying compliance and readiness.

The Court further emphasized that due diligence is assessed through a “holistic” lens (citing People v Young), using the non-exhaustive factors described in People v Bay (efforts undertaken, volume and complexity of discovery, obviousness of the missing item, explanation for the lapse, and response once the issue is identified).

Because Supreme Court made no express findings on these essential factors, the appellate court could not perform meaningful review. The remedy was procedural: hold the appeal in abeyance and remit for the necessary determinations (citing People v Coffey, People v Young, and People v James). In effect, Stanley reinforces that trial-level “remedial relief” (like a missing evidence charge) does not obviate the threshold statutory question whether the People’s COC was valid and readiness real.

Impact

1. Practical requirement of explicit record findings. People v Stanley signals that when a late-disclosed item—especially a common, expected category like body-worn camera footage—surfaces after a COC, trial courts must do more than fashion trial remedies. They must make an on-the-record inquiry and determination about due diligence/reasonable inquiries and the resulting validity of the COC and readiness.

2. Increased litigation focus on “obviousness” and police-agency inquiry steps. The late-disclosed item here was body-worn camera footage from an arresting officer. Going forward, courts and litigants will likely scrutinize what the prosecution asked of the relevant law-enforcement agencies, how the request was framed, whether the prosecutor sought confirmation from the specific unit involved in the arrest, and whether representations that “no footage exists” were reasonably vetted.

3. Separation of trial fairness remedies from readiness consequences. The trial court’s offered remedies (recall/play footage/missing evidence charge) address potential prejudice in the trial presentation. Stanley underscores that CPL article 245 and CPL 30.30 impose an additional structural remedy: if due diligence was lacking, readiness may be illusory, potentially driving CPL 30.30 calculations and dismissal analysis independent of trial-level curative measures.

4. Appellate procedure: abeyance and remittal. The decision contributes to a growing pattern in discovery/COC jurisprudence where appellate courts remit for factual determinations when the record is insufficient—encouraging trial courts to build an adequate record contemporaneously to avoid later remittals.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Certificate of Compliance (COC)
A formal filing under CPL 245.50 in which the prosecutor attests that, after due diligence and reasonable inquiries, all known automatic discovery has been disclosed. It is a legal representation with consequences; if improper, it can undermine readiness.
Due diligence and reasonable inquiries
The concrete steps the prosecution must take to find and disclose discoverable materials (including asking the right agencies/units, following up, and verifying whether common categories—like body-worn camera video—exist). Courts evaluate this holistically, considering context and the prosecutor’s response to problems.
Illusory readiness
A statement that the People are ready for trial that is not legally effective because a prerequisite (notably a proper COC) is missing. If readiness is illusory, time may continue to accrue against the People under CPL 30.30.
Missing evidence charge
A jury instruction allowing jurors to draw a negative inference against a party when evidence is missing under certain circumstances. It is a trial remedy for evidentiary unfairness; it does not answer the separate statutory question whether discovery compliance was sufficient to support a valid COC and readiness.
Conspiracy (agreement + overt act)
Under Penal Law, conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit a specified crime and at least one overt act taken to advance that agreement. The agreement is often inferred from communications and coordinated behavior rather than explicit contracts.

Conclusion

People v Stanley does two things. First, it affirms that wiretap negotiations, surveillance, and seizure evidence can collectively sustain conspiracy and possession convictions, and that involving children in drug-transaction circumstances can support endangering-the-welfare convictions. Second—and more significantly for criminal practice—it reinforces the post-COC discovery regime: when late-disclosed material emerges, trial courts must make an on-the-record determination whether the People exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries before filing their COC, because that determination governs the validity of readiness and potential CPL 30.30 consequences. The Third Department’s decision to hold the appeal in abeyance and remit underscores that without explicit findings, appellate review is not possible—and that trial-level curative measures cannot substitute for the statutory COC/readiness analysis required by People v Bay.