§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Derrick Hill, Appellant.

Brief

14 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,688 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

  2. People v. Dawson

    50 N.Y.2d 311 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 336 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Dawson, the New York Court of Appeals agreed with the general principal that, absent a specific law, a citizen ordinarily has no legal obligation to volunteer exculpatory information to law enforcement authorities.

  3. People v. Melendez

    55 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 309 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defense's cross-examination had "open[ed] the door" to some, but not all, of the hearsay testimony: it was appropriate for the detective to repeat the statements of the informant about a witness, showing that the police suspicion of him resulted from mistaken identity, but not the informant's accusation of defendant

  4. People v. Davis

    58 N.Y.2d 1102 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 281 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued March 22, 1983 Decided March 31, 1983 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, IVAN WARNER, J. Mario Merola, District Attorney ( Robin Dolsky and Steven R. Kartagener of counsel), for appellant. Barry D. Leiwant and William E. Hellerstein for Calvin Davis, respondent. Ronald D. Degen for Benjamin Johnson, respondent. MEMORANDUM. The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Testimony offered not for the truth of its content but to

  5. People v. Massie

    2 N.Y.3d 179 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 42. Argued February 19, 2004. Decided April 6, 2004. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered May 1, 2003. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree. People v. Massie, 305 AD2d 116, affirmed. Center for Appellate Litigation

  6. People v. Conyers

    52 N.Y.2d 454 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 163 times
    In People v. Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 438 N.Y.S.2d 741, 420 N.E.2d 933 (1981), we extended that principle and held that, absent circumstances not present in that case, “our State rules of evidence preclude the use of a defendant's pretrial silence to impeach his trial testimony” (id. at 457, 438 N.Y.S.2d 741, 420 N.E.2d 933).

  7. People v. Savage

    50 N.Y.2d 673 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 128 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Savage — the case on which petitioner principally relies — the defendant confessed to a shooting, but failed to tell the police that the victim was attempting to rob him.

  8. People v. De George

    73 N.Y.2d 614 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that silence in police presence is inadmissible because it is a natural reaction

  9. People v. Reid

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4272 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Reid, 19 N.Y.3d 382, 388, 948 N.Y.S.2d 223, 971 N.E.2d 353, 357 (2012), the New York Court of Appeals held that this door-opening doctrine permits a trial court to admit testimonial hearsay otherwise barred by the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.

  10. People v. Von Werne

    41 N.Y.2d 584 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 97 times
    Holding defendant's exercise of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself may not be used against him by the prosecution