11 Cited authorities

People v. Malizia
62 N.Y.2d 755 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 857 times
In People v. Malizia, 62 NY2d 755 [1984], the Court of Appeals held that the evidentiary rulings of a first trial did not automatically apply to a second trial (see People v. Nieves, 67 NY 125 [1986]).
People v. Dorm
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 1065 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 268 times
Finding no error in trial court's admission of evidence of previous arguments and conflicts between the victim and the defendant because evidence, among other things, “provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship and placed the charged conduct in context”
Frye v. United States
293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) Cited 4,502 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted
People v. Rojas
97 N.Y.2d 32 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 133 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Rojas, for example, where a defendant was charged with assault, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant's prior crimes where the defense counsel had "strongly suggested, if not argued, that the jury should acquit defendant because, having done nothing wrong, he was abused and mistreated, culminating in a scuffle with guards who surrounded him in his cell."
People v. Reynoso
73 N.Y.2d 816 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 169 times
Holding that a defendant's exculpatory statement was properly excluded because "the statement was irrelevant unless offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted . . . and for that purpose it was inadmissible hearsay"
People v. Maher
89 N.Y.2d 456 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 87 times
Argued January 6, 1997 Decided February 13, 1997 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 Second Judicial Department, entered February 13, 1996, which affirmed a judgment of the Suffolk County Court (Thomas V. Mallon, J.), rendered upon a verdict convicting defendant of murder in the second degree (two counts) and criminal contempt in the second degree. Monroe A. Semble, Riverhead, and Robert C. Mitchell
People v. Frankline
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4441 (N.Y. 2016) Cited 46 times
06-09-2016 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lennie FRANKLINE, Appellant. Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Jordan K. Hummel, Joseph N. Ferdenzi and Nancy Killian of counsel), for respondent. Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Jordan K. Hummel, Joseph N. Ferdenzi
People v. Meadow
140 A.D.3d 1596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) Cited 21 times
06-10-2016 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald MEADOW, Defendant–Appellant. Law Offices of Andrew J. Frisch, New York City (Andrew J. Frisch of Counsel), and Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent. Law Offices of Andrew J. Frisch, New York City (Andrew J. Frisch of Counsel), and Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse
People v. Wachowicz
22 N.Y.2d 369 (N.Y. 1968) Cited 98 times
Argued May 27, 1968 Decided July 1, 1968 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, CHARLES J. GAUGHAN, J. Bruce K. Carpenter and Henrietta M. Wolfgang for appellant. Michael F. Dillon, District Attorney ( Herbert J. Herman of counsel), for respondent. BERGAN, J. The circumstantial evidence in this record, seen in full perspective, forms a reliable basis upon which the jury could make a finding that defendant-appellant Wachowicz, acting with Jack Morris
People v. Malizia
92 A.D.2d 154 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983) Cited 30 times
In Malizia, we concluded that "a statement by a deceased that he intends to meet another is admissible... [because] [e]veryday experience confirms that people frequently express an intent to see another under circumstances that make it extremely likely that such a meeting will occur."

The People, Respondent,v.Nicholas Brooks, Appellant.

11 Cited authorities

In People v. Malizia, 62 NY2d 755 [1984], the Court of Appeals held that the evidentiary rulings of a first trial did not automatically apply to a second trial (see People v. Nieves, 67 NY 125 [1986]).

Finding no error in trial court's admission of evidence of previous arguments and conflicts between the victim and the defendant because evidence, among other things, “provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship and placed the charged conduct in context”

Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted

Holding that a defendant's exculpatory statement was properly excluded because "the statement was irrelevant unless offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted . . . and for that purpose it was inadmissible hearsay"

In Malizia, we concluded that "a statement by a deceased that he intends to meet another is admissible... [because] [e]veryday experience confirms that people frequently express an intent to see another under circumstances that make it extremely likely that such a meeting will occur."