§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

3 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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).