People v. O’Doherty, 36 N.Y.2d 321 (1975)

The prosecution must provide the defendant with pre-trial notice of its intention to use the defendant’s statements to police, and a mere “lack of continuity” or office failure within the prosecutor’s office does not constitute “good cause” for failing to provide such notice.

Summary

O’Doherty was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident. At trial, the prosecution introduced statements he made to a police officer without providing the statutorily required pre-trial notice. The prosecution argued a “lack of office continuity” caused the failure. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that such internal disorganization does not constitute good cause to excuse the notice requirement. The court reasoned that the purpose of the notice is to allow the defendant adequate time to prepare a defense against the statements, including challenging their voluntariness. Allowing the statements without proper notice undermines this protection and the fairness of the trial.

Facts

Defendant O’Doherty, a taxicab driver, was involved in a minor traffic incident. The complainant, Miss Britton, alleged that O’Doherty’s cab scraped her car, causing $107 in damages. She further claimed O’Doherty drove off without exchanging information after she demanded his license and registration. O’Doherty testified that no accident occurred. At trial, after the complainant testified, the prosecution called a detective who testified about statements O’Doherty made to him. Defense counsel objected, citing the lack of pre-trial notice of intent to use these statements.

Procedural History

The trial court allowed the prosecution to serve the notice during trial and granted an adjournment. The court then denied the motion to suppress O’Doherty’s statements and permitted the detective’s testimony. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the People’s failure to provide pre-trial notice of intent to use O’Doherty’s statements to a police officer, based on “lack of office continuity,” constitutes “good cause” under CPL 710.30, allowing the statements to be admitted at trial.

Holding

1. No, because a “lack of continuity” or other office failure does not constitute good cause for failing to give the required notice before trial, and therefore, the inculpatory statements were inadmissible.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that CPL 710.30 requires the prosecution to provide pre-trial notice when intending to use a defendant’s statements to a police officer as evidence. This gives the defendant time to prepare a defense regarding the voluntariness and accuracy of the statements. The court stated that “[t]he stated preference for pretrial notice of the People’s intention to use a defendant’s statements as evidence against him implements the purpose of the statute.”
The court reasoned that allowing the prosecution to introduce such statements without prior notice, absent “good cause,” defeats the statute’s purpose. “Lack of continuity” within the prosecutor’s office does not qualify as good cause; it is merely an example of inadequate office procedure. Quoting Santobello v. New York, the court stated, “The staff lawyers in a prosecutor’s office have the burden of letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing.” The court also highlighted the potential for undue prejudice from unreviewed prior statements. Because the complainant’s testimony could support a conviction, the court ordered a new trial rather than dismissing the charges.