15 Cited authorities

Rushen v. Spain
464 U.S. 114 (1983) Cited 1,006 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant's absence during judge's communication with juror was harmless
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
People v. Santiago
52 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 383 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"
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."
People v. Umali
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4184 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 119 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"
U.S. v. Frazier
280 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2002) Cited 136 times
Holding that Old Chief does not bar evidence admitted to prove issue specifically authorized by 404(b)
People v. Mehmedi
69 N.Y.2d 759 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 169 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.).
People v. Alcide
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6598 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 74 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
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.
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

The People, Appellant,v.Anner Rivera, Respondent.

15 Cited authorities

Holding that defendant's absence during judge's communication with juror was harmless

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

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"

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."

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"

Holding that Old Chief does not bar evidence admitted to prove issue specifically authorized by 404(b)

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.).

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.

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