11 Cited authorities

  1. People v. O'Rama

    78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 482 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. Kisoon

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1194 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 129 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.
  3. People v. Ahmed

    66 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 206 times
    In People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 487 N.E.2d 894, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1985), the New York Court of Appeals held that even a defendant's consent could not overcome the right to judicial supervision during jury deliberations.
  4. People v. Middleton

    54 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 156 times
    In People v Middleton (54 N.Y.2d 42), this court recognized that identification of the perpetrator of a crime through bite mark evidence had gained general acceptance in the scientific community.
  5. People v. Silva

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8215 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014] and People v. Hanson, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014], the Court of Appeals held that the trial courts committed mode of proceedings errors by failing to notify counsel of jury notes before the juries in each case reached their verdicts, even though the transcripts in both cases failed to establish whether the courts were aware that the notes had been submitted.
  6. People v. Lourido

    70 N.Y.2d 428 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 119 times
    In Lourido, we found an error sufficient, in combination with others, to compel reversal where the jury requested a read-back of the cross-examination of a key witness, received no response and rendered a verdict some three hours later; we implied that the court should at least have asked the jury, before accepting the verdict, whether it still wanted the testimony read back (id. at 431-433).
  7. People v. Dekle

    56 N.Y.2d 835 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 114 times
    In People v. Dekle, 56 N.Y.2d 835, 452 N.Y.S.2d 568 (1982), for example, the defendant moved for dismissal because the evidence did not support a finding that he threatened "immediate" use of physical force to effect a robbery, as required under the statute, because his folding knife was closed; it required two hands to open it; and the evidence showed he only had one hand free.
  8. People v. Sorrell

    108 A.D.3d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 33 times

    2013-07-3 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Garfield J. SORRELL, Jr., Appellant. Robert D. Siglin, Elmira, for appellant. Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel), for respondent. SPAIN Robert D. Siglin, Elmira, for appellant. Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel), for respondent. Before: ROSE, J.P., STEIN, SPAIN and GARRY, JJ. SPAIN, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J

  9. People v. Albanese

    45 A.D.3d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 28 times

    November 13, 2007. Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau Court (LaPera, J.), rendered August 8, 2006, convicting her of hindering prosecution in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Before: Crane, J.P., Lifson, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the

  10. People v. Fuentes

    246 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 17 times

    January 27, 1998 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.). The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Defendant's participation in the sale was established by evidence that included defendant's actions as a lookout during the sale. Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel would require a further record to be developed by way of an appropriate motion pursuant to