Legal Opinion

People v. Bolden

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 25, 1993PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Titone, J.

CPL 30.30 (4) (c) excludes certain periods during which the defendant is "absent” or "unavailable” from the time in which the People must otherwise become ready for trial. In 1984, the Legislature amended that paragraph to expand the scope of its exclusion (L 1984, ch 670). The issue in this appeal is whether the previously existing requirement that the People must exercise "due diligence” in locating an "absent” defendant or obtaining an "unavailable” defendant’s presence applies to cases arising under the amendment. We hold that, far from exempting such cases…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. CortesNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
  2. Doctors Council v. New York City Employees' Retirement SystemNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. People v. SturgisNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  4. People v. ColonNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. People v. BrattonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. People v. LuperonNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. People v. CarterNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. People v. HernandezNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. People v. SigismundiNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
  5. People v. TorresNew York Court of Appeals · 1996

68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API