56 N.Y.2d 1014 (1982)

A trial court may dispense with the statutory notice requirement of CPL 710.30 regarding the prosecution’s intent to introduce a defendant’s confession at trial when good cause is shown, such as when the defendant and their attorney negotiated, drafted, and signed the confession knowing it would be used in court.

Summary

Rafael Michel appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to provide statutory notice of its intent to use his written confession at trial, as required by CPL 710.30. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion to dispense with the notice requirement because the defense had actual notice. The confession was negotiated, drafted, and signed by both Michel and his attorney, explicitly stating it would be used in court. The Court found that Michel’s awareness of the confession’s intended use constituted good cause to waive the formal notice requirement.

Facts

Rafael Michel and his attorney negotiated, drafted, and signed a written confession. The confession itself stated that it was “going to be used in court.” Michel was aware that the confession was an integral part of an agreement and that failing to comply with the agreement would result in prosecution and the use of the confession against him.

Procedural History

The trial court admitted Michel’s confession into evidence. Michel appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to provide statutory notice of intent to use the confession. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. Michel then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred in dispensing with the statutory notice requirement of CPL 710.30 regarding the prosecution’s intent to introduce Michel’s confession into evidence at trial, given that Michel and his attorney negotiated, drafted, and signed the confession knowing it would be used in court.

Holding

No, because the defense had actual notice of the prosecution’s intent to introduce the confession at trial, providing good cause for dispensing with the statutory notice requirement under CPL 710.30(2).

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its decision on the “good cause” exception explicitly provided in CPL 710.30(2), which allows a trial court to dispense with the notice requirement. The court emphasized that the confession was negotiated, drafted, and signed by both the defendant and his attorney and that the confession itself stated it was “going to be used in court”. This showed the defense had actual notice of the prosecution’s intent. The court reasoned that requiring strict adherence to the notice requirement in this case would elevate form over substance, as the defense was undeniably aware of the confession’s intended use. The court found that, “it was clear to the defense that the confession was an integral part of the agreement ultimately concluded and that a default on defendant’s part would result in prosecution and use of the confession.” Since Michel was already aware the prosecution would use the confession, he could not claim surprise or prejudice due to lack of formal notice. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in determining that good cause existed to dispense with the statutory notice.