People v. Clark, 84 N.Y.2d 943 (1994)
A CPL 710.30 notice is sufficient when it refers to oral statements described in a police report furnished to the defendant, even if the testifying officer omits part of the statement during a suppression hearing but includes it at trial.
Summary
Clark was convicted of assault. The People provided notice under CPL 710.30 of their intent to offer a written statement and verbal statements referenced in a police report. The report detailed Clark’s claim of stabbing the victim in self-defense during a robbery. At the suppression hearing, the investigator omitted part of the statement regarding Clark’s attempt to stab other assailants. At trial, the investigator included this detail. The Court of Appeals held that the notice was sufficient because the police report, which was provided to the defendant, contained the full statement. The Court also held that the defendant’s argument regarding the suppression court’s failure to rule on the voluntariness of the omitted portion of the statement was not preserved for appeal.
Facts
Clark was indicted for first-degree assault for stabbing Reginald Thomas. Clark claimed he stabbed Thomas to prevent being robbed by Thomas and two others. Clark told Investigator Clark that he was accosted by Thomas, who demanded a cigarette and then struck him. Two other men held him down and removed his wallet. Clark stated he then stabbed Thomas and attempted to stab the other two assailants before fleeing.
Procedural History
After Clark’s arraignment, the People served notice of intent to offer a written statement and verbal statements referenced in Investigator Clark’s report. At the suppression hearing, Investigator Clark testified about Clark’s oral statement but omitted the portion about attempting to stab the other two robbers. At trial, Clark included this omitted portion in his testimony. The defense objected based on lack of notice, but the trial court overruled the objection, and Clark was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and Clark appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the People’s CPL 710.30 notice was sufficient when it referred to oral statements described in an investigative report furnished to the defendant, even though the testifying officer omitted part of the statement during the suppression hearing but included it at trial.
2. Whether the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by admitting a portion of his statement because the suppression court never ruled on its voluntariness was preserved for appeal.
Holding
1. Yes, because the People’s notice specifically referred to oral statements described in Investigator Clark’s report, which was furnished to the defendant and clearly set forth the sum and substance of the defendant’s oral statements, including the portion omitted at the suppression hearing.
2. No, because the defendant’s sole ground for objecting at trial to the admissibility of that portion of his statement was the absence of notice, and not the suppression court’s failure to rule on voluntariness.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the CPL 710.30 notice requirements were met because the notice referred to oral statements described in Investigator Clark’s report, and the report was furnished to the defendant. The report contained the full statement, including the portion omitted during the suppression hearing. The court cited People v. Lopez, 84 N.Y.2d 425, in support of this conclusion. The court emphasized that the purpose of CPL 710.30 is to provide a defendant with adequate notice of the evidence the prosecution intends to use so they can prepare their defense. The Court found the notice here satisfied that purpose. Further, the Court stated that the defendant’s argument regarding the suppression court’s failure to rule on the voluntariness of the omitted portion of the statement was not preserved because the defendant only objected at trial on the basis of lack of notice. “Defendant’s sole ground for objecting at the trial to the admissibility of that portion of his statement was the absence of notice.” Because the defendant failed to raise the voluntariness issue at trial, it could not be considered on appeal.