People v. Oliver

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Oliver

316 N.E.2d 578, 34 N.Y.2d 859, 359 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1460

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 316 N.E.2d 578 (People v. Oliver) 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.

Bluebook

People v. Oliver, 316 N.E.2d 578, 34 N.Y.2d 859, 359 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1460 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum : Prior to the passage of the new Criminal Procedure Law, it would have been proper for the Trial Judge, under certain circumstances, to deny a motion for a pretrial hearing to determine if pretrial photographic identification was improperly obtained (People v. Ganci, 27 N Y 2d 418, 427). The new Criminal Procedure Law, however, changes that rule and makes a requested pretrial hearing mandatory in a case such as the one at bar. (See CPL 710.20, subd. 5; 710.30, subd. 2; 710.40; see, also, People v. Harrington, 31 N Y 2d 785, 786.) It was therefore error to deny the motion for a pretrial hearing in this case. However, we agree with the Appellate Division that, given the overwhelming proof of guilt apart from the contested identification testimony, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum : Prior to the passage of the new Criminal Procedure Law, it would have been proper for the Trial Judge, under certain circumstances, to deny a motion for a pretrial hearing to determine if pretrial photographic identification was improperly obtained (People v. Ganci, 27 N Y 2d 418, 427). The new Criminal Procedure Law, however, changes that rule and makes a requested pretrial hearing mandatory in a case such as the one at bar. (See CPL 710.20, subd. 5; 710.30, subd. 2; 710.40; see, also, People v. Harrington, 31 N Y 2d 785, 786.) It was therefore error to deny the motion for a pretrial hearing in this case. However, we agree with the Appellate Division that, given the overwhelming proof of guilt apart from the contested identification testimony, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 N.E.2d 578, 34 N.Y.2d 859, 359 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oliver-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack