38 Cited authorities

Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,283 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (1991) Cited 2,611 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
Henderson v. United States
568 U.S. 266 (2013) Cited 607 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding second prong of plain error review considers the law as clarified during time of appeal
Jones v. Vacco
126 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 538 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[c]it[ation to] a specific constitutional provision or rel[iance] on federal constitutional precedents alerts state courts of the nature of the claim"
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
People v. Concepcion
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5110 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 225 times
Noting that New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 470.15 bars the Appellate Division "from affirming a judgment, sentence or order on a ground not decided adversely to the appellant by the trial court"
People v. Hobson
39 N.Y.2d 479 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 458 times
Finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104 violation
People v. Samms
95 N.Y.2d 52 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 222 times
Discussing this exception to the preservation rule
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.
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."

The People, Respondent,v.Mark Nonni, Appellant.

38 Cited authorities

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

Holding second prong of plain error review considers the law as clarified during time of appeal

Holding that "[c]it[ation to] a specific constitutional provision or rel[iance] on federal constitutional precedents alerts state courts of the nature of the claim"

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

Noting that New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 470.15 bars the Appellate Division "from affirming a judgment, sentence or order on a ground not decided adversely to the appellant by the trial court"

Finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104 violation

Discussing this exception to the preservation rule

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.

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."