People v. Weeks
| Decision Date | 27 March 1984 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Willie WEEKS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City (Ronald N. Weich, New York City, of counsel), for the People.
Caesar D. Cirigliano, New York City (George A. Whitley, New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
Should the People be precluded from introducing at trial a videotaped statement that the defendant refused to take a breathalyzer test, where the People failed to serve formal notice pursuant to section 710.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law within 15 days of the arraignment but have served notice prior to trial and the defendant has not been prejudiced by the delay?
The court holds that the People should not be precluded from using this evidence.
On November 4, 1983, the defendant, Willie Weeks, was arrested and charged with the crime of driving while intoxicated. At his arraignment, the defendant was given a copy of the criminal complaint which includes the sentence, "Deponent further states that defendant refused to take a breathalyzer test." The assistant district attorney at the arraignment stated, however, that "no notices" were being served pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 710.30, which requires among other things that notice of intention to offer an admission or confession by the defendant be served within 15 days of the arraignment.
On December 5, 1983, the defendant made an omnibus motion for discovery. In their response, dated December 23, 1983, the People declared "defendant made no statements." Three months later, on March 16, 1984, the People notified the defendant in writing that they were amending their response to the omnibus motion by adding, "The defendant stated that he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test."
The defendant has now moved to preclude introduction of the statement as evidence at trial, alleging that the failure by the People to serve 710.30 notice within 15 days of arraignment violates the CPL provision and requires preclusion because no good cause has been shown for the delay. The People answer that the reference in their complaint to the statement constituted sufficient notice and that in any event the defendant has not been prejudiced.
Notice by the People of an intention to offer an incriminating statement is required within 15 days of the arraignment. This period may be extended by the court "for good cause shown." Criminal Procedure Law § 710.30(2). Here the People have failed to satisfy either requirement.
Although the criminal complaint does allude to the defendant's statement, the People informed defense counsel twice that there were no statements which they intended to offer at trial. Surely the defense has the right to rely on the statement of a prosecutor at arraignment that no notices were being served and the subsequent statement of a second prosecutor in writing that no statements of the defendant would be used. The District Attorney's contention that the reference in the criminal complaint constitutes sufficient notice might be viable were it not for the specific and contradictory remarks of two prosecutors, one of whom put his disclaimer in writing.
Ambiguous statement notice does not satisfy the requirements of CPL section 710.30. As the Court of Appeals has stated:
People v. Briggs, 38 N.Y.2d 319, 324, 379 N.Y.S.2d 779, 342 N.E.2d 557 (1975).
Nor have the People shown good cause for the delay in serving statement notice. Quite simply, the District Attorney has made a mistake and has now attempted to rectify the error.
Is the defendant therefore entitled to preclusion of the statement? Definitely not.
The purposes of the 710.30 notice provision are "to give a defendant adequate time to prepare his case for questioning the voluntariness of a confession or, an admission ..." and to afford "defense counsel an opportunity, prior to trial, to investigate the circumstances of the alleged fact and voluntariness of the purported statements and prepare the defense accordingly ...." People v. Briggs, supra at 322-3, 379 N.Y.S.2d 779, 342 N.E.2d 557. Prior to 1976, notice had to be served before trial. The 15-day requirement from arraignment "was done to hasten the pretrial proceedings and to conform with the intent of CPL...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Oliver
...121 Misc.2d 1081, 469 N.Y.S.2d 840 [Crim.Ct., Kings Co., CAMMER, J.]; cf. People v. Merced, supra; People v. Weeks, 123 Misc.2d 540, 474 N.Y.S.2d 238 [Crim.Ct., NY Co., MARRUS, J.] That is not to say, however, that the absence of prejudice is always irrelevant. Where the People have demonst......
-
People v. Swanton
...460 N.Y.S.2d 365; People v. Brown, 83 A.D.2d 699, 442 N.Y.S.2d 284; People v. Anderson, 80 A.D.2d 33, 437 N.Y.S.2d 985; People v. Weeks, 123 Misc.2d 540, 474 N.Y.S.2d 238; People v. Merced, 119 Misc.2d 238, 462 N.Y.S.2d 555). We see no reason to disturb the findings of the Judge who preside......