You are here: / / The People Were Required to Give Pre-Trial Notice of an Out-of-Court Identification...
,

The People Were Required to Give Pre-Trial Notice of an Out-of-Court Identification of Defendant by Officer Viewing the Controlled Buy from Across the Street—Identification Was Not So Free From the Risk of Undue Suggestiveness that It Could Be Considered Merely “Confirmatory”—Error Was Harmless In the Face of Overwhelming Evidence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the People were required to provide the pre-trial statutory notice of the intent to introduce evidence of an out-of-court identification of the defendant by the officer (Detective Vanacore) who viewed the underlying controlled drug purchase (by an undercover officer) from across the street. The error was deemed harmless however.  Noting that the identification at issue was not so free from the risk of undue suggestiveness as to render the identification merely “confirmatory,” the court offered a clear explanation of the reasons for the statutory pre-trial notice requirement:

“CPL 710.30 could not be clearer” … . When the People intend to offer at trial “testimony regarding an observation of the defendant either at the time or place of the commission of the offense or upon some other occasion relevant to the case, to be given by a witness who has previously identified him as such,” the statute requires the People to notify the defense of such intention within 15 days after arraignment and before trial (CPL 710.30 [1] [b]). Not only is “[t]he statutory mandate . . . plain” but the procedure is “simple” … . The People serve their notice upon defendant, the defendant has an opportunity to move to suppress and the court may hold a Wade hearing (see id.). If the People fail to provide notice, the prosecution may be precluded from introducing such evidence at trial.

The notice statute was “a legislative response to the problem of suggestive and misleading pretrial identification procedures” … . In enacting the notice requirement, the Legislature “attempt[ed] to deal effectively with the reality that not all police-arranged identifications are free from unconstitutional taint” … .

The purpose of the notice requirement is two-fold: it provides the defense with “an opportunity, prior to trial, to investigate the circumstances of the [evidence procured by the state] and prepare the defense accordingly” and “permits an orderly hearing and determination of the issue of the fact . . . thereby preventing the interruption of trial to challenge initially the admission into evidence of the [identification]” … . Thus, the statute contemplates “pretrial resolution of the admissibility of identification testimony where it is alleged that an improper procedure occurred” … . * * *

Detective Vanacore’s surveillance of defendant does not constitute an “observation of . . . defendant . . . so clear that the identification could not be mistaken” thereby obviating the risk of undue suggestiveness … . Therefore, the People were required to serve their notice concerning Detective Vanacore’s observations. People v Pacquette, 2015 NY Slip Op 05595, CtApp 6-30-15

 

You might also like
Failure to Apply the Merger Doctrine In a Kidnapping Case is not a “Mode of Proceedings” Error—Failure to Object at Trial Precludes Review
THE POLICE WERE ALLOWED INTO THE VESTIBULE OF A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUT WERE NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER THE APARTMENT WHERE DEFENDANT WAS SEIZED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS UNENFORCEABLE; “DIFFICULTIES” BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND TWO ATTORNEYS ASSIGNED TO REPRESENT HIM DID NOT AMOUNT TO DEFENDANT’S FORFEITURE OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AS THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD RULED (CT APP).
​ IN A DISPUTE INVOLVING THE TELECAST RIGHTS FOR TWO MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAMS, THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED ITS POWERS, WHICH WERE SPELLED OUT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BY IMPOSING A MONEY JUDGMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS AFFIRMED BUT THE MONEY JUDGMENT WAS VACATED (CT APP).
NYC’S “OPEN SPACE” ZONING REQUIREMENT IS MET BY ROOFTOP GARDENS ON A SINGLE BUILDING IN A MULTI-BUILDING ZONING LOT (CT APP). ​
ON REMAND FROM THE US SUPREME COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS HARMLESS ERROR (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE MANDATORY FINES FOR THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW OFFENSES; AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED; AN APPEAL WAIVER DOES NOT PRECLUDE ARGUING THE PLEA WAS INVOLUNTARY (CT APP).
THE “SOLE REMEDY REPURCHASE PROTOCOL” IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE REQUIRES NOTICE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL DEFECTIVE LOAN BEFORE THE DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO REPURCHASE IT; OF THE 783 NONCONFORMING LOANS, 480 WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED; THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO REPURCHASE THE UNIDENTIFIED LOANS (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Petitioner Was Entitled to a Reduction in the Assessed Value of a Home Depot... Proof of the Dog’s Emaciated Condition Supported Defendant’s Conviction...