Legal Opinion
People v. Holley
Criminal Court of the City of New York
Decided March 23, 1993PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Rosalyn H. Richter, J.
The defendant has moved to preclude the introduction of his statements in the intoxicated drivers examination (IDE) because the prosecution did not serve timely notice pursuant to CPL 710.30.
At the arraignment, the prosecutor served notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (a) that defendant had stated in substance, "I had a couple of beers and a couple of shots.” The prosecutor also provided defense counsel with a copy of the IDE, which was prepared by the police after the defendant’s arrest. This form contains the defendant’s answers to a series of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- United States v. Martinez-FuerteSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Michigan Department of State Police v. SitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- People v. IngleNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. O'DohertyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- State v. DeskinsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1983
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. HellerCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1998
- People v. ColluraCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1994
- People v. CaliseCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1996
- People v. DiplanCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1999
- People v. LucasSuffolk County District Court · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.