People v. Oliver

316 N.E.2d 578, 34 N.Y.2d 859, 359 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1460
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 26, 1974·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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).

316 N.E.2d 578 (People v. Oliver) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The People v. Thomas P. Perdue
New York Court of Appeals, 2023
People v. Fuentes
52 A.D.3d 1297 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Smith
103 Misc. 2d 513 (New York County Courts, 1980)
People v. Woodberry
56 A.D.2d 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
People v. Slater
53 A.D.2d 41 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)