§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Princesam Bailey, Appellant.

Brief

69 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Gray

    86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 3,231 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

  2. People v. Alvino

    71 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 1,070 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

  3. People v. Lane

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8641 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 458 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim of insufficiency of evidence was not preserved for appellate review

  4. People v. Dorm

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 1065 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 268 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”

  5. People v. Buford

    69 N.Y.2d 290 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 426 times
    Holding that the trial court's reasons for its determination following a Buford inquiry should be placed on the record

  6. People v. Morris

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6633 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that evidence of a 911 call accusing defendant of robbing someone at gunpoint was relevant background information that helped explain the aggressive conduct of police when arresting the defendant

  7. People v. Hudy

    73 N.Y.2d 40 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 325 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d at 57, the Court of Appeals held that a trial court's preclusion of cross-examination questions regarding an investigating officer's testimony, coupled with the admission of a prior sexual allegation against the defendant, skewed the case in favor of the state and constituted reversible error.

  8. People v. Balls

    69 N.Y.2d 641 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 303 times
    In Balls, the Court of Appeals determined that as the defendant's objection during the prosecutor's summation was merely general, not even the later motion for a mistrial was sufficient to preserve any summation issues for appellate review.

  9. 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

  10. People v. Davis

    58 N.Y.2d 1102 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 281 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued March 22, 1983 Decided March 31, 1983 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, IVAN WARNER, J. Mario Merola, District Attorney ( Robin Dolsky and Steven R. Kartagener of counsel), for appellant. Barry D. Leiwant and William E. Hellerstein for Calvin Davis, respondent. Ronald D. Degen for Benjamin Johnson, respondent. MEMORANDUM. The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Testimony offered not for the truth of its content but to