People v. Anonymous, 754 N.E.2d 193 (NY 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Anonymous, 754 N.E.2d 193 (NY 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Redmond (nyappdiv, 2020-04-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Redmond
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
However, extrinsic proof tending to establish a witness's bias or reason to fabricate is never collateral ( see People v Spencer , 20 NY3d 954, 956 [2012]; People v Anonymous , 96 NY2d 839, 840 [2001]; People v Hudy , 73 NY2d 40, 56-57 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nicholson (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the rebuttal witness was properly called to give testimony that was relevant to the defense witness’s bias or motive to fabricate, which is not collateral (see People v Anonymous, 96 NY2d 839, 840 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nicholson (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the rebuttal witness was properly called to give testimony that was relevant to the defense witness’s bias or motive to fabricate, which is not collateral (see People v Anonymous, 96 NY2d 839, 840 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pealer
NY · 2013 · confidence medium
Ill Defendant raises additional issues, many of which are either unpreserved or otherwise unreviewable, and the remainder lack merit: the curative instruction during the prosecutor’s summation corrected any perceived error (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]); it was not an abuse of discretion to permit a rebuttal witness (see People v Anonymous, 96 NY2d 839, 840 [2001]); defendant has failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of meaningful legal assistance (see e.g.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The videotape was admissible as rebuttal evidence to discredit the testimony of defendant’s alibi witness (see People v Anonymous, 96 NY2d 839, 840 [2001]) and defendant has not demonstrated “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for [defense] counsel’s” stipulation (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see generally People v Rivera, 22 AD3d 888, 889-890 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 780 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Harris
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
It has been recognized, primarily in other contexts, that evidence of uncharged conduct may be probative where it is “directly bearing on the motive to testify of a critical witness in a criminal trial, whose motive is important to an evaluation of her credibility” (People v Beckles, 128 AD2d 435, 439 [1987]; see People v Anonymous, 275 AD2d 210, 212 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 839 [2001]; People v Folk, 176 AD2d 754, 754-755 [1991]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Harris
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
It has been recognized, primarily in other contexts, that evidence of uncharged conduct may be probative where it is “directly bearing on the motive to testify of a critical witness in a criminal trial, whose motive is important to an evaluation of her credibility” (People v Beckles, 128 AD2d 435, 439 [1987]; see People v Anonymous, 275 AD2d 210, 212 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 839 [2001]; People v Folk, 176 AD2d 754, 754-755 [1991]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Anonymous, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 5, 2001.
754 N.E.2d 193
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Daniel A. Warshawsky of counsel), for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Deborah L. Morse and Susan Gliner of counsel), for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo Concur.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

[*840] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The motivation of defendant’s main alibi witness to fabricate testimony was not collateral and, therefore, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting cross-examination of the witness or in admitting rebuttal testimony refuting the alibi witness’s claims. We note the point raised by defendant as to the prosecutor’s improper comments during the summation, but are unable to reach it. We do not condone the summation and base our affirmance solely on defendant’s failure to preserve the issue. Defendant’s remaining argument regarding the court’s charge is likewise unpreserved (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 471-472).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.