People v. McMullin, 70 N.Y.2d 855 (1987)

A prosecutor’s notice of intent to introduce a defendant’s statement must be made within the statutorily prescribed time, and a withdrawn notice is ineffective, requiring exclusion of the statement unless good cause is shown for the delay.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and mandated a new trial. The defendant was indicted for selling a controlled substance. The prosecutor initially provided notice of intent to use an oral statement by the defendant, then withdrew it, claiming it was issued in error. The prosecutor later reinstated the notice after the statutory period. The court held the statement admissible, but the Court of Appeals found the untimely notice rendered the statement inadmissible, and because the evidence was not overwhelming that the defendant was a seller rather than an agent, the error wasn’t harmless.

Facts

The defendant was indicted for selling a controlled substance. The prosecutor initially notified the defendant of the intent to use the defendant’s oral statement to a police officer at trial. The defendant moved to suppress this statement. The prosecutor withdrew the notice, asserting it was issued in error as no such statement existed. On the day jury selection began, the prosecutor informed the defendant that the statement did exist and the prior notice was withdrawn due to a prosecutorial office error.

Procedural History

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to exclude the statement based on untimely notice. The court immediately held a suppression hearing and deemed the statement admissible. The statement was later admitted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.

Issue(s)

Whether a prosecutor’s withdrawal of a timely notice of intent to use a defendant’s statement, followed by a late re-assertion of the notice, constitutes ineffective notice requiring exclusion of the statement.

Holding

Yes, because the initial notice was withdrawn and thus ineffective, and the subsequent notice was untimely, violating the defendant’s rights. The error in admitting the statement was not harmless.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on precedent from People v. O’Doherty, stating that notice must be given within the time prescribed by statute unless good cause is shown for the delay. “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.” The Court emphasized that the initial notice, although timely, was rendered ineffective by its withdrawal. The subsequent notice was untimely. The court reasoned the statement should have been excluded. The court also found the admission of the statement was not harmless error because the proof of the defendant’s role as a seller, rather than an agent of the buyer, was not overwhelmingly clear without the defendant’s admission. This highlights the importance of timely and accurate notice to ensure a fair trial.