36 Cited authorities

  1. Santobello v. New York

    404 U.S. 257 (1971)   Cited 4,466 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 1,913 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 2,930 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 671 times
    In Holtzman, the court held that the trial court does not have the power to terminate a criminal proceeding by default by entering a trial order of dismissal on the merits where no evidence had been presented and the merits of the case had not yet been heard (see also, People v Douglass, 60 N.Y.2d 194, 200-206, supra [discussing the trial court's lack of authority to dismiss a criminal case for "failure to prosecute" or "calendar control"]).
  5. People v. Thomas

    50 N.Y.2d 467 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 453 times
    Reversing Appellate Division
  6. People v. Fuller

    57 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 235 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.
  7. People v. Carncross

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2435 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 108 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
  8. Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman

    60 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 226 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

    351 N.E.2d 650 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 243 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. Michael

    48 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 208 times
    Finding no "manifest necessity" where mistrial declared due to the absence of the defendant's attorney because of a death in the family and the court's belief that the trial had to terminate by the end of the week because the court and several jury members had vacation plans