§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Marcus D. Hogan, Appellant.

Brief

32 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Caban

    5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 1,636 times
    Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth

  2. People v. Wiggins

    89 N.Y.2d 872 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defense counsel's failure to timely facilitate defendant's intention to testify before grand jury did not, per se, amount to denial of effective assistance of counsel

  3. People v. Ferguson

    67 N.Y.2d 383 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 189 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial when defendant was not consulted or present

  4. People v. Daniels

    37 N.Y.2d 624 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 251 times
    In Daniels the evidence showed that two defendants were apprehended in the apartment with drugs in open view, and the third defendant, in whose apartment the drugs were found, was arrested after he was observed leaving the apartment.

  5. People v. Colville

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7047 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 75 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the 1980 ABA commentary, the 1993 ABA commentary, and the law in various jurisdictions in determining the decision to request a lesser included offense rests with defense counsel

  6. People v. Kims

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7196 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 61 times

    10-23-2014 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant–Respondent, v. Stanley R. KIMS, II, Respondent–Appellant. Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Harmony A. Healy of counsel), and Karen F. McGee and Hannah E.C. Moore, New York Prosecutors Training Institute, Albany, for appellant-respondent. Davison Law Office, PLLC, Canandaigua (Mark C. Davison of counsel), for respondent-appellant. RIVERA, J. Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Harmony A. Healy of counsel), and

  7. People v. Robinson

    89 N.Y.2d 648 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that the exclusion of defendant's fiancee's grand jury testimony, which indicated that fiancee was an eyewitness and that sexual contact between defendant and third party was consensual, violated defendant's due process rights where declarant was unavailable and testimony bore sufficient indica of reliability

  8. People v. Simmons

    10 N.Y.3d 946 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued June 5, 2008. decided July 1, 2008. APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered July 12, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at dismissal motion; Maxwell Wiley, J., at jury trial and sentence), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth

  9. People v. Smith

    87 N.Y.2d 715 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 79 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In People v Smith (87 NY2d 715 [1996]), in the context of grand jury testimony, we emphasized that allowing questioning about an unrelated pending criminal matter has an impermissible "chilling effect" on the accused's "significant" and "valued" statutory right to testify, which must be "scrupulously protected."

  10. People v. Colon

    90 N.Y.2d 824 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 75 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Argued May 1, 1997 Decided June 5, 1997 Appeal from the Supreme Court (Pearl C. Corrado, J.). Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County, Kew Gardens ( Sharon Y. Brodt and John M. Castellano of counsel), for appellant. Russell C. Morea, Kew Gardens, for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to that Court for consideration of the facts ( see, CPL 470.25 [d]; 470.40 [2] [b]). At the end of the second round of jury selection, the