§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Keith A. Adams, Appellant.

Brief

36 Cited authorities

  1. Santobello v. New York

    404 U.S. 257 (1971)   Cited 4,881 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if petitioner is granted specific performance he "should be resentenced by a different judge"

  2. Weatherford v. Bursey

    429 U.S. 545 (1977)   Cited 2,344 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant in a non-capital case has no right to discover lists of prospective government witnesses

  3. People v. Gray

    86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 3,233 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

  4. Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman

    71 N.Y.2d 564 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 697 times
    Finding that the plain language of the statute authorizing a trial order of dismissal "manifests the Legislature's intention only to grant the court the power to rule on insufficiency, not the power to terminate the proceedings by default"

  5. People v. Thomas

    50 N.Y.2d 467 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 468 times
    Reversing Appellate Division

  6. People v. Carncross

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2435 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 146 times
    Finding defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that he acted with the requisite mens rea to be unpreserved because he failed to argue it with particularity in his motion at trial

  7. People v. Fuller

    57 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 252 times
    In People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152, 455 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1982), the New York Court of Appeals applied a narrow exception to the preservation doctrine in a case where the trial court exceeded its statutory authority, thereby levying an unlawful sentence. Id. at 156-59, 455 N.Y.S.2d at 255-56; accord, e.g., People v. Samms, 95 N.Y.2d 52, 55-56, 710 N.Y.S.2d 310, 312-313 (2000) (failure to object at the time of sentencing did not render the challenge unpreserved, because the sentence was imposed in violation of a statutory mandate and therefore was unauthorized).

  8. Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman

    60 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 237 times
    In Matter of Schumer v Holtzman (60 N.Y.2d 46, 55), a case involving removal, we held that generally a public prosecutor should not be removed unless necessary to protect a defendant from "actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence" (id.; see also, People v Herr, 86 N.Y.2d 638; People v Jackson, supra).

  9. Matter of Dondi v. Jones

    40 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 253 times
    In Matter of Dondi v Jones (40 N.Y.2d 8, 13, supra), we recognized that prohibition would be an appropriate remedy if it were found that a Special Prosecutor was exceeding the authority conferred upon him through Executive Order by prosecuting a particular criminal defendant under an existing indictment.

  10. People v. Baumann Sons

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2234 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 100 times

    42. Argued February 15, 2006. Decided March 23, 2006. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered April 6, 2005. The Appellate Term (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County (James P. Flanagan, J.), which had convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of violating Islip Town Code § 35-3 (D), (2) dismissed the information and (3) remitted