27 Cited authorities

People v. Gray
86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 3,228 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
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
People v. Harris
99 N.Y.2d 202 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 163 times
In Harris, the New York Court of Appeals determined that the record supported the lower courts' conclusion that "defense counsel's unawareness of the potential conflict precludes a finding that he was somehow inhibited in single-mindedly pursuing [defendant]'s best interests during the course of the representation."
People v. Nieves
67 N.Y.2d 125 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 195 times
In Nieves, as in Tates, the theory argued by the People on appeal had been expressly disclaimed by the prosecutor during the evidentiary hearing (see People v Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d at 129-130).
People v. Rodriguez
71 N.Y.2d 214 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 155 times
In Rodriguez, we held that where a juror is "racially or otherwise invidiously biased against the defendant," the juror is presumed to be grossly unqualified (71 N.Y.2d at 220).
People v. Rice
75 N.Y.2d 929 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 133 times
Holding that although certain admitted evidence exceeded the scope of the "prompt outcry" exception, the error was harmless in light of the victim's identification of the defendant
People v. Buckley
75 N.Y.2d 843 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 127 times
In Buckley, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree (Penal Law § 165.45 [former (1)]), based upon his possession, along with his codefendants, of four stolen radar detectors that were owned by four different individuals, the aggregate value of which exceeded $250. Individually, however, the four stolen radar detectors did not have a value in excess of $250. Defense counsel contended that, because the four stolen radar detectors each belonged to different owners, each stolen radar detector amounted to a different offense (see Buckley, 75 NY2d at 845-846).
People v. Hicks
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 9657 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 68 times
Holding that a defendant must inform court that its questioning is the issue or suggest further inquiry
People v. Anderson
149 A.D.3d 1407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017) Cited 41 times
106133 04-27-2017 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GUY ANDERSON, Appellant. Danielle Neroni Reilly, Albany, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Matthew B. Keller of counsel), for respondent. Garry, J. Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Rose and Aarons, JJ. Danielle Neroni Reilly, Albany, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Matthew B. Keller of counsel), for respondent
People v. Mejias
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3263 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 41 times
Affirming a court's decision to issue an instruction to the whole jury instead of question individual jurors where "there (was) no indication from the (allegations) that ... the impartiality (of the jurors) was in doubt or that the juror had committed any misconduct"

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

27 Cited authorities

Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

Holding that the trial court's reasons for its determination following a Buford inquiry should be placed on the record

In Nieves, as in Tates, the theory argued by the People on appeal had been expressly disclaimed by the prosecutor during the evidentiary hearing (see People v Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d at 129-130).

In Rodriguez, we held that where a juror is "racially or otherwise invidiously biased against the defendant," the juror is presumed to be grossly unqualified (71 N.Y.2d at 220).

Holding that although certain admitted evidence exceeded the scope of the "prompt outcry" exception, the error was harmless in light of the victim's identification of the defendant

Holding that a defendant must inform court that its questioning is the issue or suggest further inquiry

Affirming a court's decision to issue an instruction to the whole jury instead of question individual jurors where "there (was) no indication from the (allegations) that ... the impartiality (of the jurors) was in doubt or that the juror had committed any misconduct"