People v. Spruill

• Decision Date: 12 June 1979
• Citation: 392 N.E.2d 1252,419 N.Y.S.2d 69,47 N.Y.2d 869
• Parties: , 392 N.E.2d 1252 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael SPRUILL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 69

419 N.Y.S.2d 69

47 N.Y.2d 869, 392 N.E.2d 1252

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael SPRUILL, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 12, 1979.

Spiros A. Tsimbinos, Kew Gardens, for appellant

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty. (James Clark Quinn, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The court erred in admitting the defendant's confession at trial. The People concededly had not given the defendant pretrial notice as required by statute (CPL 710.30) nor, in our view, did they establish "good cause" for filing a late notice. We have previously held that "(l)ack of continuity or other office failure" within the prosecutor's office does not provide an adequate excuse (People v. Briggs, 38 N.Y.2d 319, 324, 379 N.Y.S.2d 779, 783, 342 N.E.2d 557, 560; cf. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 259-260, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427). The excuse offered in this case that the police officer had not informed the prosecutor of the confession prior to trial is no different in principle. Under similar circumstances we have noted that "(k)nowledge on the part of the police department would, of course, be imputed to the District Attorney's office. A defendant ought not be penalized because of any inadequacy of internal communication within the law enforcement establishment" (People v. McLaurin, 38 N.Y.2d 123, 126, 378 N.Y.S.2d 692, 694, 341 N.E.2d 250, 252).

The other contentions raised by the defendant lack merit. The finding of fact that the defendant was advised of his rights before he made the confession is supported by sufficient evidence and thus is beyond review in this court.

JASEN, Judge (dissenting).

In my view, the People have established "good cause" justifying their filing of a late notice of intention to offer at trial an oral statement made by defendant to an arresting police officer. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

Defendant was tried and convicted before a jury of the crime of robbery in the first degree. At trial during cross-examination, defense counsel asked one of the arresting police officers whether defendant had made any statements at the time of arrest, to which the officer responded: "You want the truth?" An immediate bench conference was held at which it became apparent for the first time that defendant had made inculpatory admissions to the officer concerning disposal of the weapon used in the robbery and the first name of an accomplice. When the court determined that the Assistant District Attorney had been unaware of these statements, the court temporarily dismissed the jury and held a Huntley hearing to determine their admissibility. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court held defendant's statements admissible, concluding that defendant, after having been properly advised, made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights.

The majority concludes that the trial court erred in admitting defendant's statements because the People failed to serve defendant with timely notice of intention to offer this evidence at trial pursuant to CPL 710.30. More importantly, the majority further concludes that the People have failed to demonstrate "good cause" for their delay. Support for this novel proposition is garnered from this court's...