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

People v. Spruill

392 N.E.2d 1252, 47 N.Y.2d 869, 419 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2141
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 12, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 392 N.E.2d 1252 (People v. Spruill) 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. Spruill, 392 N.E.2d 1252, 47 N.Y.2d 869, 419 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2141 (N.Y. 1979).

Opinions

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 NY2d 319, 324; cf. Santobello v New York, 404 US 257, 259-260). The excuse [871]*871offered 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 "[kjnowledge 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 NY2d 123, 126).

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.

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

Related

McCullough v. Bennett
438 F. Supp. 2d 185 (W.D. New York, 2006)
People v. Sigismundi
679 N.E.2d 620 (New York Court of Appeals, 1997)
People v. Centeno
168 Misc. 2d 172 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
People v. Harris
150 Misc. 2d 735 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
People v. Dunne
152 Misc. 2d 36 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
People v. Riley-James
168 A.D.2d 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Sian
167 A.D.2d 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Ocasio
146 Misc. 2d 688 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
People v. Maldonado
144 Misc. 2d 338 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)
People v. D'Amico
148 A.D.2d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Lubarska
143 A.D.2d 1048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Brock
143 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Olds
140 Misc. 2d 458 (New York Supreme Court, 1988)
In re Gina C.
139 Misc. 2d 203 (NYC Family Court, 1988)
People v. Pinney
136 A.D.2d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. O'Doherty
517 N.E.2d 213 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. D'Amico
136 Misc. 2d 16 (New York County Courts, 1987)
People v. Steele
134 Misc. 2d 629 (New York Supreme Court, 1987)
People v. Oliver
129 Misc. 2d 432 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1985)
People v. Perez
65 N.Y. 154 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
392 N.E.2d 1252, 47 N.Y.2d 869, 419 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spruill-ny-1979.