§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Selbin Martinez, Appellant.

Brief

14 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Malizia

    62 N.Y.2d 755 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 857 times
    In People v. Malizia, 62 NY2d 755 [1984], the Court of Appeals held that the evidentiary rulings of a first trial did not automatically apply to a second trial (see People v. Nieves, 67 NY 125 [1986]).

  2. People v. Payne

    3 N.Y.3d 266 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 300 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the requisite level of "indifference" cannot typically be exhibited in one-on-one, intentional assaults that result in the victim's death

  3. People v. Martinez

    71 N.Y.2d 937 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 372 times
    Authorizing appropriate sanctions for the failure to preserve witness statements

  4. People v. Vilardi

    76 N.Y.2d 67 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 343 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Comparing the state law standard — whether there was a "reasonable possibility" that withheld evidence could have affected the result of the proceeding — to the federal standard of "reasonable probability"

  5. People v. Handy

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2103 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 81 times
    In Handy, a police surveillance system created a series of images depicting a portion of the defendant's alleged jailhouse assault on some sheriff's deputies, and those images remained in the possession of the police (see id. at 666, 966 N.Y.S.2d 351, 988 N.E.2d 879).

  6. People v. Wallace

    76 N.Y.2d 953 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 120 times
    In Wallace, the Rosario material consisted of contemporaneous notes taken by an undercover officer to describe the individual from whom he bought drugs, and the arresting officer's notes recording that description as the undercover officer broadcast it to him.

  7. People v. Poole

    48 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 145 times
    In People v. Poole, 48 NY2d 144 [1979], a case cited by the People, the Court was concerned with whether defense counsel has the right to inspect a prosecutor's file to determine if Rosario material exists.

  8. People v. Joseph

    86 N.Y.2d 565 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 87 times
    Noting "the need for a precise correlation between the undisclosed and disclosed material" to consider the possibility that the documents may be duplicative equivalents, and therefore, holding that "a document that has been lost or destroyed and is therefore no longer available for judicial inspection cannot be deemed the `duplicative equivalent' of Rosario material that has previously been disclosed"

  9. People v. Kelly

    88 N.Y.2d 248 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 53 times

    Argued April 25, 1996 Decided June 6, 1996 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Victor J. Orgera, J. Susan J. Horwitz, New York City, and Daniel L. Greenberg for appellants in the three above-entitled actions. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County, Kew Gardens (Linda Cantoni and Steven J. Chananie of counsel), for respondent in the three above-entitled actions. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York

  10. People v. Williams

    5 N.Y.3d 732 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 27 times

    92. Argued April 28, 2005. Decided June 9, 2005. 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 29, 2004. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stackhouse, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal sale of a controlled substance