People v. Myrick
This text of 489 N.E.2d 742 (People v. Myrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant’s contention that a witness’s testimony concerning the intruder’s description should have been excluded from evidence because the People failed to supply him with statutory pretrial notice of their intention to offer identification testimony (CPL 710.30 [1]) is without merit on these facts because there was evidence the witness gave the description prior to any potentially suggestive showup. Such observation testimony is not within the ambit of CPL 710.30 (see, Memorandum of Assemblyman Weprin, 1976 NY Legis Ann, at 29; cf. People v Sanders, 66 NY2d 906 [decided herewith]).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
489 N.E.2d 742, 66 N.Y.2d 903, 498 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-myrick-ny-1985.