42 Cited authorities

Patterson v. New York
432 U.S. 197 (1977) Cited 2,357 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process does not create “a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.”
People v. Peque
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7651 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 627 times
Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea
People v. Rudolph
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4840 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 422 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Rudolph, the New York Court of Appeals held that per CPL § 720.20(1), where a defendant is eligible to be treated as a youthful offender, per state law, the sentencing court “must” determine whether he or she is to be so treated and that compliance with this statutory compliance cannot be dispensed, even where the defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.
People v. O'Rama
78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 571 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict
People v. Feingold
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5233 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 347 times 3 Legal Analyses
Ruling that depraved indifference to human life, rather than recklessness, is the applicable mens rea in statutes in which the former appears
Great N Ins v. Interior Corp.
7 N.Y.3d 412 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 196 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp. (7 NY3d 412), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that "a commercial lease negotiated between two sophisticated parties who included a broad indemnification provision, coupled with an insurance procurement requirement" is enforceable (Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp., 7 NY3d at 419).
People v. Bing
76 N.Y.2d 331 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 310 times
In Bing, the New York Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant, who had been represented by counsel on prior pending unrelated charges, was not deprived of the right to counsel under the State Constitution where, in the absence of counsel, the defendant waived his or her Miranda rights and made statements in response to police questioning on matters unrelated to the prior pending charge.
People v. Hobson
39 N.Y.2d 479 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 458 times
Finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104 violation
People v. Register
60 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 346 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the depraved indifference element referred to the "factual setting in which the risk creating conduct must occur," rather than the mens rea requirement
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.

The People, Respondent,v.Pamela Hanson, Appellant.

42 Cited authorities

Holding that due process does not create “a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.”

Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea

Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict

Ruling that depraved indifference to human life, rather than recklessness, is the applicable mens rea in statutes in which the former appears

Finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104 violation

Holding that the depraved indifference element referred to the "factual setting in which the risk creating conduct must occur," rather than the mens rea requirement

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.