15 Cited authorities

  1. People v. O'Rama

    78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 475 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. Starling

    650 N.E.2d 387 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 183 times
    Holding that "the statutory definition of the term [sell] conspicuously excludes any requirement that the transfer be commercial in nature or conducted for a particular type of benefit or underlying purpose"
  3. People v. Alcide

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6598 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 71 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

  4. People v. Middleton

    54 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 154 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. Ramirez

    935 N.E.2d 791 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 66 times
    In People v. Ramirez, 15 N.Y.3d 824, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791 (2010) as well, the conclusion that there had been no mode of proceedings error rested upon the circumstance that “defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court's response ” (id. at 825–826, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791 [emphasis supplied]).
  6. People v. Lourido

    70 N.Y.2d 428 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 118 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 113 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. James Kadarko

    928 N.E.2d 1025 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 42 times
    Finding no error where counsel was affirmatively informed of, but did not object to, formalistic violation of O'Rama
  9. People v. Sorrell

    108 A.D.3d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 34 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

  10. People v. DeRosario

    611 N.E.2d 273 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 60 times
    Finding that preservation rules were satisfied where, "[a]fter the court had answered specific written inquiries with defense counsel's participation, several oral colloquies took place between the court and the jury, and trial counsel for appellant joined in an objection made by counsel for a codefendant"