New York Court of Appeals, 1987

People v. Boughton

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 24, 1987

70 N.Y.2d 854; 517 N.E.2d 1340; 523 N.Y.S.2d 454; 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19064

Cases that cite this one

25 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Phillips (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Bernier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Hatchett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
People v. Hatchett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
People v. Moore (New York County Courts 1998)
People v. Heller (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1998)
People v. Thornton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Sang Bae (New York Supreme Court 1995)
People v. Centeno (New York Supreme Court 1995)
People v. Hines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Katowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Ocasio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Kellman (New York Supreme Court 1992)
People v. Dunne (New York Supreme Court 1991)
People v. Howard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Ocasio (New York Supreme Court 1990)
People v. Reed (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Maldonado (New York Supreme Court 1989)
In re Latasha J. (NYC Family Court 1989)
People v. Amparo (N.Y. 1988)
People v. Pulido (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Lubarska (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Grandenetti (New York Supreme Court 1988)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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 *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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.