People v. Boughton

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: WACHTLER
• Citation: People v. Boughton, 523 N.Y.S.2d 454, 70 N.Y.2d 854, 517 N.E.2d 1340 (N.Y. 1987)
• Decision Date: 24 November 1987
• Parties: , 517 N.E.2d 1340 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William BOUGHTON, Appellant.

Page 454

523 N.Y.S.2d 454

70 N.Y.2d 854, 517 N.E.2d 1340

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William BOUGHTON, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 24, 1987.

J. Raymond Fisher, Albany, for appellant.

Sol Greenberg, Dist. Atty. (Michael J. Connolly, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 126 A.D.2d 795, 510 N.Y.S.2d 297, should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The defendant, indicted for sale of a controlled substance, received written notice of the prosecutor's intent to use at trial an oral statement made by the defendant to a police officer. However, when the defendant moved to suppress the statement the prosecutor withdrew the notice on the ground that it had been issued in error because no such statement existed. Nevertheless, on the day jury selection began the prosecutor informed the defendant that an oral statement had been made and that the prior notice had been erroneously withdrawn due to confusion in the prosecutor's office.

The defendant moved to exclude the statement on the ground that the notice was untimely. The court denied the motion, immediately held a suppression hearing, held the statement admissible and later admitted it at the trial.

We have held that the prosecutor's notice of intent to introduce a statement must be made within the time prescribed in the statute, unless good cause is shown for the delay and that mere neglect is no excuse (People v. O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479, 522 N.Y.S.2d 498, 517 N.E.2d 213; People v. McMullin, 70 N.Y.2d 855, 523 N.Y.S.2d 455, 517 N.E.2d 1341)...