§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. People v. Velasquez

    1 N.Y.3d 44 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 164 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a "presumption of regularity attaches to judicial proceedings," which "may be overcome only by substantial evidence," not mere speculation

  3. People v. Kisoon

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1194 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 132 times
    In People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 132, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (2007), the New York Court of Appeals considered "whether a trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to disclose... a jury note."

  4. People v. Alcide

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6598 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 74 times

    2013-10-10 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James ALCIDE, Appellant. Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Leonard Job-love and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent. READ Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Leonard Job-love and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent

  5. People v. Tabb

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8679 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "absence of record proof constituted "a mode of proceedings error . . . requiring reversal"

  6. People v. Williams

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3866 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 43 times

    2013-05-30 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Timothy WILLIAMS, Appellant. Steven Banks, Legal Aid Society, New York City (Laura Lieberman Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Daniel R. Alonso and Hilary Hassler of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, Legal Aid Society, New York City (Laura Lieberman Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Daniel R. Alonso and Hilary Hassler of

  7. People v. Cruz

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2832 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 21 times
    Holding the presumption was overcome with evidence that "there was a significant, unexplained irregularity in the proceedings"

  8. People v. Valentine

    7 A.D.3d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    3291. Decided May 6, 2004. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stackhouse, J.), rendered March 8, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed. Andrew C. Fine, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Grace

  9. People v. Thompson

    30 A.D.3d 198 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    8743. June 8, 2006. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered July 30, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 1/3 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed. Laurence J. Sass, New York, for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Madeleine Guilmain of counsel), for respondent. Before: Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ., concur

  10. People v. Raventos

    199 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    December 20, 1993 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Garry, J.). Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. In People v Bialostok ( 80 N.Y.2d 738), the Court of Appeals held that, irrespective of how it is actually used, an electronic device which can in some way be adapted so as to function as an eavesdropping device must be deemed an eavesdropping device for the purpose of applying the controlling statutory and constitutional provisions (US Const 4th, 14th Amends; N Y Const, art I, § 12;