§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Brian Degraffenreid, Appellant.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Whalen

    59 N.Y.2d 273 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 446 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Whalen, the defendant argued that identification evidence is "always suspect, so that, when a trial involves a close question of identity, the jury should receive an instruction emphasizing the scrutiny to be given to such evidence.

  2. People v. Thomas

    50 N.Y.2d 467 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 468 times
    Reversing Appellate Division

  3. People v. Patterson

    39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 433 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. Petty

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5232 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 147 times
    Affirming rule that "evidence of a deceased victim's prior threats against defendant is admissible to prove that the victim was the initial aggressor"

  5. 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"

  6. People v. Ladd

    89 N.Y.2d 893 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding "reasonable grounds" to believe defendant had been driving while intoxicated where a driver had consumed alcohol, had driven across the center lane in fog at a high speed, and had collided head-on with another car

  7. People v. Echevarria

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3019 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 60 times
    Recognizing that “[t]he safety of law enforcement officers unquestionably may constitute an overriding interest” but that “the proponent of closure must demonstrate a substantial probability that the identified interest will be prejudiced by an open courtroom” (citing Press–Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 478 U.S. 1, 14, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) )

  8. People v. Coleman

    70 N.Y.2d 817 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 128 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued October 9, 1987 Decided November 12, 1987 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Lawrence Tonetti, J. Steven J. Cohen and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant. Mario Merola, District Attorney (Stacey K. Edelbaum and Billie Manning of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Appellant was convicted after a jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20) and criminal possession

  9. People v. Cyrus

    48 A.D.3d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 27 times
    In People v. Cyrus, 48 A.D.3d 150, 159, 848 N.Y.S.2d 67 (1st Dept. 2007), lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 763, 854 N.Y.S.2d 325, 883 N.E.2d 1260 [2008]), the First Department stated that a police officer's testimony regarding a poor quality videotape depicting a theft at a Duane Reade store would "likely [be] inadmissible" because it would violate the best evidence rule.

  10. People v. Hutchinson

    57 A.D.3d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 16 times

    No. 100014. December 4, 2008. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered January 20, 2006, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of assault in the second degree. Edward W. Goehler, Cortland, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider-Ulacco of counsel), for Respondent. Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Rose and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Stein, J. Defendant was indicted by a Chemung County

  11. Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 536 times

    (a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review