THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. LEMONT LAING, RESPONDENT. / THE PEOPLE &C.,
APPELLANT, v. TODD WADE, RESPONDENT.
79 N.Y.2d 166, 589 N.E.2d 372, 581 N.Y.S.2d 149 (1992).
February 20, 1992
2 No. 28
2 No. 29
Decided February 20, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
No. 28:
Andrew Zwerling, for Appellant.
David M. Cherubin, for Respondent.
New York County District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau, amicus curiae.
New York State District Attorneys' Association, amicus curiae.
No. 29:
Andrew Zwerling, for Appellant.
David Louis Cohen, for Respondent.
New York County District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau, amicus curiae.
BELLACOSA, J.:
In both of these cases, the People claim that CPL 450.20(8) authorizes
them to appeal to the Appellate Division from trial orders precluding
the introduction of identification evidence for failure to comply with
CPL 710.30's timely notice provision. We affirm the orders of the
Appellate Division dismissing the People's appeals to that court
(People v Laing, 168 AD2d 635; People v Wade, 170 AD2d 468), because
CPL 710.30 orders are not among the enumerated authorizations in CPL
450.20 and because there is no interpretative alternative to that
exclusive route for a People's appeal.
Defendant Laing was arrested on November 15, 1988 in connection with a
robbery and stabbing of a gas station attendant nine days earlier in
Queens. On the day of arrest, the police showed the victim a single
photograph of defendant from which an identification was made. At
arraignment, defendant received a CPL 710.30(1)(b) notice, along with
the District Attorney's Voluntary Disclosure Form reflecting the
victim's identification. After a Wade hearing, Supreme Court granted
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. LEMONT LAING, RESPONDENT.
/ THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. TODD WADE, RESPONDENT.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
New York County District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau,
New York State District Attorneys' Association, amicus curiae.
the People claim that CPL 450.20authorizes them to appeal to the Appellate Division from
We affirm the orders of the Appellate Division dismissing the People's appeals to that court,
Defendant Laing was arrested on November 15, 1988 in connection with a robbery and stabbing
At arraignment, defendant received a CPL 710.30notice, along with the District Attorney's
Supreme Court granted defendant's motion to suppress the identification.
Prior to jury selection, the People alerted defendant that they had learned of another
The prosecutor argued that neither a CPL 710.30 notice nor a Wade hearing were required
Defendant Wade was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance, third degree, based
Prior to any suppression hearings, Supreme Court granted defendant's motion to preclude the
The Appellate Division dismissed both appeals, holding that CPL 450.20does not authorize
A Judge of this Court granted permission to appeal in each case to the People.
The CPL 710.30 notice requirement facilitates the opportunity for defendants to test the
It is fundamental that in the absence of a statute expressly authorizing a criminal appeal,
This principle recognizes the Legislature's policy prerogative "to limit appellate
The words and numerical references and incorporations in CPL 450.20 could not be plainer --
|
