§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.William Morrison, Respondent.

Brief

13 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. Mack

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4321 (N.Y. 2016)   Cited 110 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Mack, the Court of Appeals made clear that a court should follow a two-step process when it receives a jury note: (1) give counsel notice that a note has been received; and (2) meaningfully respond to the note.

  3. People v. Silva

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8215 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 63 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.

  4. People v. Glass

    43 N.Y.2d 283 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 128 times

    Argued November 17, 1977 Decided December 19, 1977 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, CULVER K. BARR, J. Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender, for appellant. Lawrence T. Kurlander, District Attorney (Stephen M. Brent of counsel), for respondent. FUCHSBERG, J. The defendant was convicted of burglary and grand larceny after a jury trial. Subsequent to the filing of a notice of appeal, it was discovered that the stenographer who recorded the proceedings

  5. People v. Yavru-Sakuk

    98 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 60 times
    In Yavru-Sakuk, the court noted that in determining whether such appellate review is fatally compromised, the court may consider whether the exhibits had "substantial importance to the issues raised on appeal" (citing People v. Strollo, 191 NY 42, 66) and whether, for example, there exist copies of the missing exhibits "and the correctness of the copies is unquestioned or unquestionable" (id.).

  6. People v. Hameed

    88 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 65 times

    Argued May 2, 1996 Decided June 5, 1996 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, John T. Gallagher, J., Ralph Sherman, J. Mark B. Gombiner, Brooklyn, and Kunstler and Kuby, New York City (Ronald L. Kuby of counsel), for appellants. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County, Kew Gardens (Andrew L. Zwerling of counsel), for respondent. BELLACOSA, J. The two legal issues emanating from this murder conviction after a third jury trial are whether

  7. People v. Parris

    4 N.Y.3d 41 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 47 times
    In Parris, the Court held that "where a significant portion of the minutes has been lost: (1) a reconstruction hearing should normally be available for a defendant appealing his conviction after trial, if the defendant has acted with reasonable diligence to mitigate the harm done by the mishap; but (2) a defendant who has pleaded guilty is entitled to a reconstruction hearing only where he can identify a ground for appeal that is based on something that occurred during the untranscribed proceeding."

  8. People v. Ochoa

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1346 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 33 times

    Nos. 22, 23. Argued January 13, 2010. Decided February 16, 2010. APPEAL, in the first above-entitled action, 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 December 18, 2008. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.; see 10 Misc 3d 1060[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 52055[U]), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second

  9. People v. Rivera

    39 N.Y.2d 519 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 94 times
    In Rivera, the court ordered a new trial because such a reconstruction hearing was not possible; the defendant had retrograde amnesia, defense counsel had been disbarred and could not be located, the prosecutor had suffered a paralytic stroke, and the judge who presided at the trial was deceased.

  10. People v. Cain

    76 N.Y.2d 119 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 58 times
    In Cain, the trial court summoned a juror to the robing room in response to a poll of the jury upon its verdict (see Cain, 76 N.Y.2d at 121–122, 556 N.Y.S.2d 848, 556 N.E.2d 141).

  11. Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 539 times

    (a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review