People v. Oliver, 316 N.E.2d 578 (NY 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Oliver, 316 N.E.2d 578 (NY 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The People v. Thomas P. Perdue (ny, 2023-12-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Thomas P. Perdue
NY · 2023 · confidence medium
In any event, any error was clearly harmless (see People v Harris, 80 NY2d 796, 798 [1992]; People v Owens, 74 NY2d 677, 678 [1989]; People v Oliver, 34 NY2d 859, 860 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fuentes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in refusing to conduct a second Wade hearing, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that such error contributed to the verdict, and thus the error is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Oliver, 34 NY2d 859, 860 [1974] ; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975] ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Smith
nycountyct · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
The fact that such an identification was conducted before a court in the felony hearing or before the Grand Jury by the use of a single photograph or improper display does not magically alleviate the evidentiary problem of potential misidentification which has been the core concern of all cases post-Wade ( 388 US 218 , supra), i.e., the "high incidence of miscarriage of justice”, resulting from the admission of mistaken identification evidence at court trials (United States v Wade, supra, at p 228; accord People v Thomas, 60 AD2d 993 ; cf. People v Rivera, 74 AD2d 857 , supra; People v Leite…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Harold Oliver
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 26, 1974.
316 N.E.2d 578
Joseph P. Kirley for appellant., Carl A. Vergari, District Attorney (Janet Cunard of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum : Prior to the passage of the new Criminal Procedure Law, it would have been proper for the Trial Judge, under certain circumstances, to deny a motion for a pretrial hearing to determine if pretrial photographic identification was improperly obtained (People v. Ganci, 27 N Y 2d 418, 427). The new Criminal Procedure Law, however, changes that rule and makes a requested pretrial hearing mandatory in a case such as the one at bar. (See CPL 710.20, subd. 5; 710.30, subd. 2; 710.40; see, also, People v. Harrington, 31 N Y 2d 785, 786.) It was therefore error to deny the motion for a pretrial hearing in this case. However, we agree with the Appellate Division that, given the overwhelming proof of guilt apart from the contested identification testimony, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.