midpage

People v. MyrickPeople v. Myrick

New York Court of Appeals
Nov 26, 1985
Versions:66 N.Y.2d 903
489 N.E.2d 742
498 N.Y.S.2d 773
1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17992

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.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Myrick
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Nov 26, 1985
Citations: 66 N.Y.2d 903; 489 N.E.2d 742; 498 N.Y.S.2d 773; 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17992
Court Abbreviation: N.Y.
Log In