22 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,141 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. O'Rama

    78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 483 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
  3. People v. Patterson

    39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 412 times
    In Patterson the Court did not even mention Mullaney until after it had concluded that the issue on the merits was within the special category that always deserves review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.
  4. People v. Starling

    85 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 181 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 126 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. Ciaccio

    47 N.Y.2d 431 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 226 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"
  7. People v. Alcide

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6598 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 71 times

    2013-10-10 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James ALCIDE, Appellant. Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Leonard Job-love and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent. READ Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Leonard Job-love and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent

  8. People v. Ramirez

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 6559 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 68 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 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "absence of record proof constituted "a mode of proceedings error . . . requiring reversal"
  10. People v. Silva

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8215 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014] and People v. Hanson, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014], the Court of Appeals held that the trial courts committed mode of proceedings errors by failing to notify counsel of jury notes before the juries in each case reached their verdicts, even though the transcripts in both cases failed to establish whether the courts were aware that the notes had been submitted.