47 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,781 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,754 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"
Daye v. Attorney General of New York
696 F.2d 186 (2d Cir. 1982) Cited 2,007 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "reliance on state cases employing constitutional analysis in like fact situations" fairly presents the federal claim
People c. v. Evans
94 N.Y.2d 499 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 505 times
Finding law of the case addresses judicial determinations made in course of single litigation
People v. Dorm
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 1065 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 278 times
Finding no error in trial court's admission of evidence of previous arguments and conflicts between the victim and the defendant because evidence, among other things, “provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship and placed the charged conduct in context”
People v. Linares
2 N.Y.3d 507 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 298 times
Affirming conviction and rejecting defendant's argument that he was entitled to a new trial because he was denied substitute counsel after he threatened his attorney, who nonetheless proceeded to represent him
Martin v. City of Cohoes
37 N.Y.2d 162 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 570 times
Stating that in the absence of strong countervailing public policy, parties may consent to the law that is to be applied to the case
People v. Johnson
1 N.Y.3d 302 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 211 times
Finding that testimony was improperly admitted as excited utterance where the challenged declaration was made to police in narrative form and in response to prompting an hour after the startling event, and the declarant had become more relaxed
People v. Kello
96 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 192 times
Holding that hearsay objection alone was insufficient to preserve Confrontation Clause objection
People v. Goldstein
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 9654 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 146 times
In Goldstein, we also discussed, but did not decide, another hearsay issue: Do statements like those recounted by Hegarty in Goldstein (or by the State's experts in this case) fall within an exception to the hearsay rule?

The People, Respondent,v.Twanek Cummings, Appellant.

47 Cited authorities

Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements

Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

Holding that "reliance on state cases employing constitutional analysis in like fact situations" fairly presents the federal claim

Finding law of the case addresses judicial determinations made in course of single litigation

Finding no error in trial court's admission of evidence of previous arguments and conflicts between the victim and the defendant because evidence, among other things, “provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship and placed the charged conduct in context”

Affirming conviction and rejecting defendant's argument that he was entitled to a new trial because he was denied substitute counsel after he threatened his attorney, who nonetheless proceeded to represent him

Stating that in the absence of strong countervailing public policy, parties may consent to the law that is to be applied to the case

Finding that testimony was improperly admitted as excited utterance where the challenged declaration was made to police in narrative form and in response to prompting an hour after the startling event, and the declarant had become more relaxed

Holding that hearsay objection alone was insufficient to preserve Confrontation Clause objection

In Goldstein, we also discussed, but did not decide, another hearsay issue: Do statements like those recounted by Hegarty in Goldstein (or by the State's experts in this case) fall within an exception to the hearsay rule?