15 Cited authorities

  1. Rushen v. Spain

    464 U.S. 114 (1983)   Cited 897 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant's absence during judge's communication with juror was harmless
  2. People v. O'Rama

    78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 491 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. Santiago

    52 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 371 times
    Holding that the failure to make "an application seeking further or more complete instructions" precluded defendant from "assert[ing] the inadequacy of such instructions as error on appeal"
  4. People v. Kisoon

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1194 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 129 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.
  5. People v. Umali

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4184 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 109 times
    Holding that "(o)ur task in evaluating a challenge to jury instructions is not limited to the appropriateness of a single remark; instead, we review the context and content of the entire charge"
  6. U.S. v. Frazier

    280 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2002)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that Old Chief does not bar evidence admitted to prove issue specifically authorized by 404(b)
  7. People v. Mehmedi

    505 N.E.2d 610 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 162 times
    In Mehmedi, the court consulted with counsel in framing its answer to a jury note, but proceeded to instruct the jury by sending in a written note, in the absence of defendant (id.).
  8. People v. Morales

    80 N.Y.2d 450 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 134 times
    In Morales, the issue before the Court was whether it was reversible error to exclude the defendant when the court preliminarily examined a child witness to determine whether she understood the nature of an oath.
  9. People v. Alcide

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6598 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 72 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

  10. People v. Rice

    75 N.Y.2d 929 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that although certain admitted evidence exceeded the scope of the "prompt outcry" exception, the error was harmless in light of the victim's identification of the defendant