§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Ricardo Ricketts, Appellant.

Brief

16 Cited authorities

  1. Pointer v. Texas

    380 U.S. 400 (1965)   Cited 4,287 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment”

  2. People v. Gray

    86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 3,227 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

  3. Smith v. Illinois

    390 U.S. 129 (1968)   Cited 679 times
    Holding that the right of cross-examination is included in the right of an accused in a criminal case to confront the witnesses against him

  4. Alford v. United States

    282 U.S. 687 (1931)   Cited 1,153 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial court "may exercise a reasonable judgment in determining when subject [on cross-examination] is exhausted" and has "a duty to protect [the witness] from questions which go beyond the bounds of proper cross-examination merely to harass, annoy or humiliate"

  5. People v. Feingold

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5233 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 347 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that depraved indifference to human life, rather than recklessness, is the applicable mens rea in statutes in which the former appears

  6. People v. Mezon

    80 N.Y.2d 155 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 90 times
    In People v Mezon (80 NY2d 155, 160-161), the Court of Appeals held: "Once the trial court stated unequivocally that it would permit [the procedure] any further objection * * * would have been futile.

  7. People v. Stanard

    42 N.Y.2d 74 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 82 times
    In People v. Stanard (42 NY2d 74), we set out the sequential steps that must be followed whenever the People seek to shield a witness's identity, address and/or occupation.

  8. People v. Waver

    3 N.Y.3d 748 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 31 times

    160. Decided November 23, 2004. 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 First Judicial Department, entered January 13, 2004. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), which had convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. People v. Waver, 3 AD3d 360, reversed. Robert S. Dean, New

  9. People v. Rosen

    81 N.Y.2d 237 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 41 times
    In Rosen, the New York Court of Appeals found that the trial court's unchallenged denial of a pro se defendant's request to be present at side-bar proceedings was arbitrary and sufficient to preserve the issue of the constitutional right to self-representation on appeal. Thus in both cases the substance of a fundamental, clearly applicable constitutional right was raised even if the proper label was not.

  10. People v. Floyd

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2779 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    2013-04-25 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel FLOYD, Appellant. Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Allegra Glashausser of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Rhea A. Grob of counsel), for respondent. Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Allegra Glashausser of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Rhea A. Grob of counsel), for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.