Home/New York Court of Appeals/People v. Boughton

People v. Boughton

517 N.E.2d 1340, 70 N.Y.2d 854, 523 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19064
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 24, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 517 N.E.2d 1340 (People v. Boughton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Boughton, 517 N.E.2d 1340, 70 N.Y.2d 854, 523 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19064 (N.Y. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division 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 [855]*855trial 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prosecutor informed the defendant that an oral statement had been made and that the prior notice had been erroneously withdrawn due to confusion in the prosecutor’s office.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 NY2d 479; People v McMullin, 70 NY2d 855). In this case the defendant did not receive effective notice until after the time had run. The prior notice, although timely served, had been withdrawn and thus was ineffective. Accordingly, the statement should have been excluded.

The error in admitting this statement cannot be said to be harmless because absent the defendant’s oral admission the proof that the defendant was a seller, rather than an agent of the buyer, was not overwhelming.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Hatchett
2022 NY Slip Op 04282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Heller
180 Misc. 2d 160 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1998)
People v. Moore
178 Misc. 2d 163 (New York County Courts, 1998)
People v. Thornton
222 A.D.2d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Centeno
168 Misc. 2d 172 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
People v. Sang Bae
164 Misc. 2d 669 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
People v. Katowski
204 A.D.2d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Hines
200 A.D.2d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Kellman
156 Misc. 2d 179 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
People v. Ocasio
183 A.D.2d 921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Phillips
183 A.D.2d 856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Dunne
152 Misc. 2d 36 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
People v. Howard
162 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Ocasio
146 Misc. 2d 688 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
People v. Taylor
155 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Reed
154 A.D.2d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Maldonado
144 Misc. 2d 338 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)
In re Latasha J.
144 Misc. 2d 208 (NYC Family Court, 1989)
People v. Amparo
532 N.E.2d 94 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
People v. Lubarska
143 A.D.2d 1048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
517 N.E.2d 1340, 70 N.Y.2d 854, 523 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boughton-ny-1987.