§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.Shane Morris, Respondent.

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Victor v. Nebraska

    511 U.S. 1 (1994)   Cited 1,747 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof," so long as the instructions taken as a whole correctly convey the concept of "reasonable doubt"

  2. Cage v. Louisiana

    498 U.S. 39 (1990)   Cited 1,111 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional a differently worded instruction that used the terms "grave uncertainty," "actual substantial doubt," and "moral certainty," and that was not surrounded by other, correct instructions that gave content to those terms

  3. People v. O'Rama

    78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 571 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

  4. 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"

  5. 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."

  6. People v. Fields

    87 N.Y.2d 821 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 166 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that similar language would be improper if given in isolation because "a juror might interpret it to authorize a guilty verdict even if the People did not establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," but ultimately finding that "the court's extensive, accurate instructions on the burden of proof and the concept of reasonable doubt safeguarded against such an impermissible inference"

  7. People v. Robinson

    88 N.Y.2d 1001 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 116 times

    Decided September 10, 1996 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, James R. Cowhey, J. Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains, and Jacqueline F. Oliva for appellant. Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney of Westchester County, White Plains (Maryanne Luciano of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted, as an accomplice, of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse

  8. People v. Ramirez

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 6559 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 71 times
    In People v. Ramirez, 15 N.Y.3d 824, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791 (2010) as well, the conclusion that there had been no mode of proceedings error rested upon the circumstance that “defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court's response ” (id. at 825–826, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791 [emphasis supplied]).

  9. People v. Tabb

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8679 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "absence of record proof constituted "a mode of proceedings error . . . requiring reversal"

  10. People v. Williams

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3866 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 43 times

    2013-05-30 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Timothy WILLIAMS, Appellant. Steven Banks, Legal Aid Society, New York City (Laura Lieberman Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Daniel R. Alonso and Hilary Hassler of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, Legal Aid Society, New York City (Laura Lieberman Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Daniel R. Alonso and Hilary Hassler of