People v. Amparo
| Decision Date | 17 November 1988 |
| Parties | , 532 N.E.2d 94 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Maximiliano AMPARO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 128 A.D.2d 712, 513 N.Y.S.2d 441, should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
The People failed to notify defense counsel, within 15 days of arraignment, of their intention to use defendant's oral statement as evidence, and they failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay in furnishing the required notice. Accordingly, that statement was not admissible against him at trial (see, CPL 710.30; People v. O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479, 522 N.Y.S.2d 498, 517 N.E.2d 213; People v. Boughton, 70 N.Y.2d 854, 523 N.Y.S.2d 454, 517 N.E.2d 1340; People v. McMullin, 70 N.Y.2d 855, 523 N.Y.S.2d 455, 517 N.E.2d 1341).
The exception contained in CPL 710.30(3)--where a defendant has "moved to suppress such evidence and such motion has been denied and the evidence thereby rendered admissible"--is inapplicable here. Defense counsel did not make a motion for suppression of the oral statement on the ground that it was in substance inadmissible at trial; such a motion in effect would have afforded defendant the same opportunity for a court to pass upon the admissibility of the statement as he would have had if timely notice had been given. Rather, defense counsel moved only for preclusion of the oral statement on account of late notice, which does not fall within the exception contained in CPL 710.30(3). Nor did defendant's pro se motion fall within the exception, for it was never before the trial court for decision.
The error in admitting defendant's oral statement cannot be viewed as harmless. That statement was the only one made by him establishing his prior connection to the burglarized premises, and it might well have contributed to the jury's verdict. Indeed, after the case was submitted, the jury requested a read-back of that very testimony.
We need not reach the additional issues raised by defendant.
ORDER REVERSED, ETC.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCray
...triggered by a motion limited to preclude the 38 N.Y.S.3d 687use of statements on the basis of an untimely notice (see People v. Amparo, 73 N.Y.2d 728, 729, 535 N.Y.S.2d 588, 532 N.E.2d 94 [1988] ), where the motion is also to suppress the statements and a hearing on the matter has been hel......
-
People v. Heller
...to pass upon the admissibility of the statement as he would have had if timely notice had been given." People v. Amparo, 73 N.Y.2d 728, 729, 535 N.Y.S.2d 588, 532 N.E.2d 94 (1988). Here, the question remains as to whether defendant was afforded the opportunity for a decision on the admissib......
-
People v. Sturiale
...A.D.2d 987, 624 N.Y.S.2d 702; cf., People v. Bernier, 73 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008, 541 N.Y.S.2d 760, 539 N.E.2d 588; People v. Amparo, 73 N.Y.2d 728, 729, 535 N.Y.S.2d 588, 532 N.E.2d 94). In any event, defendant did not move to preclude, and his claim of preclusion for lack of notice under CPL 71......
-
People v. Culver
...for the delay, the statement would therefore be inadmissible against defendant at trial (CPL 710.30[1], [2]; People v. Amparo, 73 N.Y.2d 728, 729, 535 N.Y.S.2d 588, 532 N.E.2d 94). Neither of the two exceptions to inadmissibility (good cause for delay [see, People v. Sian, 167 A.D.2d 435, 4......