31 Cited authorities

Krulewitch v. United States
336 U.S. 440 (1949) Cited 989 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an out-of-court statement of one conspirator may be admitted against his fellow conspirator only if the statements were "made pursuant to and in furtherance of objectives of the conspiracy charged"
People v. O'Rama
78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 568 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict
People v. Yut Wai Tom
53 N.Y.2d 44 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 283 times
In Yut Wai Tom, "the most prejudicial conduct of the Trial Judge... was his constant interruption of defense counsel's cross-examination to ask questions which would only be proper as redirect examination if asked by the prosecutor" (Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d at 59).
People v. Starling
85 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 190 times
Holding that "the statutory definition of the term [sell] conspicuously excludes any requirement that the transfer be commercial in nature or conducted for a particular type of benefit or underlying purpose"
People v. Kisoon
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1194 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 132 times
In People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 132, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (2007), the New York Court of Appeals considered "whether a trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to disclose... a jury note."
People v. Ahmed
66 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 208 times
In People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 487 N.E.2d 894, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1985), the New York Court of Appeals held that even a defendant's consent could not overcome the right to judicial supervision during jury deliberations.
People v. Ciaccio
47 N.Y.2d 431 (N.Y. 1979) Cited 229 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that instructions given during jury deliberations "may well be determinative of the outcome of the case, coming as they do in response to questions raised by the jurors themselves"
People v. Kelly
5 N.Y.3d 116 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 81 times
Noting that "[o]utside the context described by [the mode of proceedings error cases] . . . we have repeatedly held that a court's failure to adhere to a statutorily or constitutionally grounded procedural protection does not relieve the defendant of the obligation to protest"
People C. v. Calabria
94 N.Y.2d 519 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 93 times
Argued February 16, 2000 Decided April 6, 2000. Gary A. Farrell, for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, for respondent. SMITH, J. The dispositive issue in this case is whether the prosecutor's conduct throughout the trial effectively denied defendant the right to a fair trial. We conclude that it did, reverse the order of the Appellate Division and order a new trial. Complainant, Diane Chappelle, is the wife of the pastor of the International Baptist Church in Brooklyn, New York and a teacher at the International
People v. Agramonte
87 N.Y.2d 765 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 101 times 1 Legal Analyses
Argued January 2, 1996 Decided April 2, 1996 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Edward M. Rappaport, J., Michael A. Corriero, J. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn (Linda Breen and Roseann B. MacKechnie of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn (Linda Breen and Roseann B. MacKechnie of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled

The People, Respondent,v.James Alcide, Appellant.

31 Cited authorities

Holding that an out-of-court statement of one conspirator may be admitted against his fellow conspirator only if the statements were "made pursuant to and in furtherance of objectives of the conspiracy charged"

Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict

In Yut Wai Tom, "the most prejudicial conduct of the Trial Judge... was his constant interruption of defense counsel's cross-examination to ask questions which would only be proper as redirect examination if asked by the prosecutor" (Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d at 59).

Holding that "the statutory definition of the term [sell] conspicuously excludes any requirement that the transfer be commercial in nature or conducted for a particular type of benefit or underlying purpose"

In People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 132, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (2007), the New York Court of Appeals considered "whether a trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to disclose... a jury note."

In People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 487 N.E.2d 894, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1985), the New York Court of Appeals held that even a defendant's consent could not overcome the right to judicial supervision during jury deliberations.

Recognizing that instructions given during jury deliberations "may well be determinative of the outcome of the case, coming as they do in response to questions raised by the jurors themselves"

Noting that "[o]utside the context described by [the mode of proceedings error cases] . . . we have repeatedly held that a court's failure to adhere to a statutorily or constitutionally grounded procedural protection does not relieve the defendant of the obligation to protest"