From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Broome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 2, 1989
151 A.D.2d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Summary

In People v Broome (151 AD2d 995), the defendant moved to preclude identification evidence because he had not been served with a proper written notice pursuant to CPL 710.

Summary of this case from People v. Harris

Opinion

June 2, 1989

Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Bergin, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant is entitled to a new trial because the complainant's identification testimony should have been precluded. Defendant moved to preclude identification testimony because he had not been served with a written notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b). The Judge who heard that motion (Burke, J.) ruled that the People would be precluded from introducing identification evidence because they had failed to serve the required notice. Two days before trial, the Trial Judge (Bergin, J.) conducted a Wade hearing over defendant's objection and determined that identification evidence should not be suppressed. At trial, the complainant identified defendant as his attacker. The trial court erred in conducting a Wade hearing and in admitting identification evidence at trial. Because the People failed to serve the requisite notice, defendant's motion to preclude identification testimony should have been granted (CPL 710.30 [b]; People v. Bernier, 73 N.Y.2d 1006; People v McMullin, 70 N.Y.2d 855). Additionally, Judge Burke's determination that identification testimony could not be used at trial constituted the law of the case and was binding on Judge Bergin (see, People v. Johnson, 131 A.D.2d 696, 697, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 713; People v. Finley, 104 A.D.2d 450, adhered to on rearg 107 A.D.2d 709).

With respect to defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for denial of the opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury, the court properly denied his motion to dismiss (CPL 730.40). We have reviewed defendant's remaining claims of error and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Broome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 2, 1989
151 A.D.2d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

In People v Broome (151 AD2d 995), the defendant moved to preclude identification evidence because he had not been served with a proper written notice pursuant to CPL 710.

Summary of this case from People v. Harris
Case details for

People v. Broome

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KARL BROOME, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 2, 1989

Citations

151 A.D.2d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

The provisions of CPL Article 330 are best left to remedy errors which allegedly occurred once jeopardy…

People v. Roc

Before the application of law of the case doctrine can be given preclusive effect, the court must 1) examine…