People v. McMullin
Cases that cite this one
56 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- People v. Greene (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1994)
- People v. Smith (New York Supreme Court 1991)
- People v. Bernier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Showers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Phillips (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. Little (New York Supreme Court 1991)
- People v. Ptah (New York Supreme Court 1990)
- In re Latasha J. (NYC Family Court 1989)
- People v. Lubarska (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Villarraga (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2025)
- People v. Villarraga (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2025)
- People v. Villarraga (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2025)
- People v. Hardie (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2025)
- People v. Brebnor (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2024)
- People v. Mendoza (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2024)
- People v. Mendoza (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2024)
- People v. Rashid (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Green (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Jones (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Porter (City of New York Municipal Court 2011)
- People v. Nolasco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Smothers (New York Supreme Court 2008)
- In re Shaniq S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- People v. Moore (New York County Courts 1998)
- People v. Heller (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
When a witness identifies a defendant out of court, CPL 710.30 requires that if the People intend to have the witness identify the defendant at trial, they must serve upon the defendant a notice of their intention to use identification testimony within 15 days of arraignment. That section also states that the People must establish good cause for delay if they seek to serve this notice after the 15-day period.
In the case before us, the People failed to serve within 15 days of arraignment a notice of their intention to offer at trial the testimony of two witnesses, both of whom observed defendant inside their home and thereafter identified defendant at the police station. Nevertheless, the witnesses were allowed to identify defendant at trial.
On this appeal the People contend that they were properly allowed to serve a late notice because the delay did not prejudice defendant. However, the "[l]ack of prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay does not obviate the need for the People to meet the statutory requirement of good cause before they may be permitted to serve a late notice.”
Moreover, under the circumstances of this case the error was not harmless. Here defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree, and the erroneously admitted in-court identifications were the only direct evidence placing him inside the victims’ home.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.