Defendant argues that there should be a reversal and a new trial because the trial prosecutor did not serve notice of his intent to introduce defendant's prior Family Court testimony concerning his son, as required by CPL 710.30. Defendant also argues that the prosecutor breached a promise not to use defendant's prior statements. Reversal is not required (see, People v Rice,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.