In anticipation of using the statement in this way, the People request that the Court hold a hearing as to the voluntariness of the statement.The timing constraints of CPL § 710.30 apply only to statements which the prosecution intends to “offer at trial,” that is, as part of its direct case (see People v. Goodson, 57 N.Y.2d 828 [1982] ; People v. Harris, 25 N.Y.2d 175, 177 [1969], affd Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 [1971] ; People v. Rigo, 273 A.D.2d 258 [2d Dept 2000] ; People v. Doe, 179 A.D.2d 686 [2d Dept 1992] ).It is clearly “the better practice” for the People to provide the defendant with some prior notice of their intention to cross-examine him regarding prior statements he allegedly made to the police (People v. Rudolph, 134 A.D.2d 539, 539–40 [2d Dept 1987] ; see also People v. Barrie, 74 A.D.2d 576, 577 [2d Dept 1980] ; cf. People v. Connor, 157 A.D.2d 739 [2d Dept 1990] [advance notice “waived” where defendant's testimony opened the door to admission of the statement] ).
In anticipation of using the statement in this way, the People request that the Court hold a hearing as to the voluntariness of the statement.The timing constraints of CPL § 710.30 apply only to statements which the prosecution intends to “offer at trial,” that is, as part of its direct case (see People v. Goodson, 57 N.Y.2d 828 [1982] ; People v. Harris, 25 N.Y.2d 175, 177 [1969], affd Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 [1971] ; People v. Rigo, 273 A.D.2d 258 [2d Dept 2000] ; People v. Doe, 179 A.D.2d 686 [2d Dept 1992] ).It is clearly “the better practice” for the People to provide the defendant with some prior notice of their intention to cross-examine him regarding prior statements he allegedly made to the police (People v. Rudolph, 134 A.D.2d 539, 539–40 [2d Dept 1987] ; see also People v. Barrie, 74 A.D.2d 576, 577 [2d Dept 1980] ; cf. People v. Connor, 157 A.D.2d 739 [2d Dept 1990] [advance notice “waived” where defendant's testimony opened the door to admission of the statement] ).