§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant-Respondent,v.Stanley R. Kims, II, Respondent-Appellant.

Brief

50 Cited authorities

  1. Maryland v. Buie

    494 U.S. 325 (1990)   Cited 2,346 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, incident to arrest, an officer may conduct a limited protective sweep of those areas of a house in which he reasonably suspects a dangerous person may be hiding

  2. Mincey v. Arizona

    437 U.S. 385 (1978)   Cited 3,689 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment if otherwise trustworthy, the Constitution prohibits " any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement"

  3. Bailey v. United States

    568 U.S. 186 (2013)   Cited 509 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Summers rule allowing detention is spatially constrained and limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, qualifying that the three justifications recognized in Summers did not apply when the occupants left the premises prior to the execution of the search noting: occupants that left the scene of the search posed little risk to officer safety and routine precautions could prevent any potential danger caused by their return; damage to the integrity of the search caused by potential flight of occupants at the scene justifies detention; and detention beyond the immediate vicinity gives all appearances and the associated stigma of an arrest

  4. Ryburn v. Huff

    565 U.S. 469 (2012)   Cited 223 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a “reasonable policeofficer could read” Brigham City and related decisions “to mean that the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to enter a residence if the officer has a reasonable basis for concluding that there is an imminent threat of violence,” and noting that the officers in Ryburn “could have come to the conclusion that there was an imminent threat to their safety and the safety of others.”

  5. People v. Alvino

    71 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 1,067 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of similar uncharged crimes is excluded for policy reasons because it may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters

  6. Calley v. Hoffman

    425 U.S. 911 (1976)   Cited 243 times
    Holding that a similar preference clause in the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. § 485h(c), applied to sales of thermally generated electrical power

  7. People v. Arafet

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7482 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 153 times

    No. 142. Argued September 17, 2009. Decided October 22, 2009. APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered August 21, 2008. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Schenectady County Court (Polly A. Hoye, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree. People v Arafet, 54

  8. People v. Till

    87 N.Y.2d 835 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 220 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testimony of prior bad acts may be admitted into evidence, after a finding by the court that the probative value outweighs any undue prejudice caused by its admission, when "needed as background material" or to "complete the narrative of the episode" that established a motive for and provided the jury with a thorough appreciation for the interwoven events leading up to the defendant's criminal conduct

  9. People v. Lewis

    69 N.Y.2d 321 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 156 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that “juries attribute too much significance” to prior acts evidence

  10. People C. v. Calabria

    94 N.Y.2d 519 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 93 times

    Argued February 16, 2000 Decided April 6, 2000. Gary A. Farrell, for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, for respondent. SMITH, J. The dispositive issue in this case is whether the prosecutor's conduct throughout the trial effectively denied defendant the right to a fair trial. We conclude that it did, reverse the order of the Appellate Division and order a new trial. Complainant, Diane Chappelle, is the wife of the pastor of the International Baptist Church in Brooklyn, New York and a teacher at the International