People v. Broome
| Decision Date | 02 June 1989 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Karl BROOME, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gerald T. Barth, Syracuse by James Maxwell, for appellant.
Robert E. Wildridge, Syracuse by Edward McQuat, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, J.P., and GREEN, PINE, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ.
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[1][b]; People v. Bernier, 73 N.Y.2d 1066, 541 N.Y.S.2d 760, 539 N.E.2d 588 [1989]; People v. McMullin, 70 N.Y.2d 855, 523 N.Y.S.2d 455, 517 N.E.2d 1341). 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, 517 N.Y.S.2d 31, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 713, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1048, 513 N.E.2d 1316; People v. Finley, 104 A.D.2d 450, 479 N.Y.S.2d 63, adhered to on rearg 107 A.D.2d 709, 484 N.Y.S.2d 63).
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[3]. We have reviewed defendant's remaining claims of error and find them to be without merit.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ptah
...... If the People fail to serve timely notice and do not demonstrate good cause for their failure, the identification testimony is not admissible at trial. C.P.L. § 710.30(3); People v. McMullin, 70 N.Y.2d at 856-57, 523 N.Y.S.2d 455, 517 N.E.2d 1341; People v. Broome, 151 A.D.2d 995, 542 N.Y.S.2d 433 (4th . Page 401. Dept.1989); see also People v. McKeever, 104 A.D.2d 608, 479 N.Y.S.2d 545 (2d Dept.1984); People v. Williams, 77 A.D.2d 579, 429 N.Y.S.2d 738 (2d Dept.1980); People v. Hand, 74 A.D.2d 909, 425 N.Y.S.2d 851 (2d Dept.1980); People v. Slater, ......
-
People v. Roc
...effect under the doctrine of law of the case ( People v. Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d 125, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1, 492 N.E.2d 109 (1986)); People v. Broome, 151 A.D.2d 995, 542 N.Y.S.2d 433 (4th Dept.1989); People v. Leon, 264 A.D.2d 784, 695 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2nd Dept.1999). Applying [961 N.Y.S.2d 853]the law of......
-
People v. Greene
...... People v. Bernier, supra, is to the same effect on similar facts. 1 See also People v. Broome, . Page 236. 151 A.D.2d 995, 542 N.Y.S.2d 433 (4th Dept.1989); People v. Jones, 182 A.D.2d 708, 582 N.Y.S.2d 476 (2nd Dept.1992); People v. Miles, 163 A.D.2d 330, 557 N.Y.S.2d 163 (2nd Dept.1990); People v. Perez, 177 A.D.2d 657, 576 N.Y.S.2d 359 (2nd Dept.1991). Thus, the ......
-
People v. Nenni
...argued orally granted defendant's request for a hearing, and thus his decision constitutes the law of the case (see, People v. Broome, 151 A.D.2d 995, 542 N.Y.S.2d 433; People v. Johnson, 131 A.D.2d 696, 697, 517 N.Y.S.2d 31, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 713, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1048, 513 N.E.2d 1316). In......