green
Positive treatment
Issue: reasonable doubt standardNY ↗
Issue: statement was obtained violationNY ↗
Issue: abstract ruleNY ↗
Issue: transcription inquiryNY ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
41.7 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 44 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bratcher v. McCray
(3×)
to frame and preserve a question of law reviewable by this court, an objection or exception must be made with sufficient specificity at the trial, when the nisi prius court has an opportunity to consider and deal with the asserted error.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Johnson
(2×)
That turns, as always, on what arguments were made with "sufficient specificity" in the trial court ( People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]; see also People v Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 NY3d 404, 408 [2006] [applying same rule to a constitutional challenge]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Spinks
(2×)
Defendant's contention in appeal No. 1 that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on wholly circumstantial evidence is not preserved for our review ( see generally CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hogle
Defendant did not raise those issues before County Court at any point, and they are therefore unpreserved ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mayette
(3×)
Footnote 4: Defendant's remaining claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved in the absence of timely, specific objections ( see generally CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Toran
Defendant's contention that County Court erred in failing to instruct the jury on wholly circumstantial evidence is not preserved for our review ( see generally CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Maharrey
As defendant correctly concedes, he did not object to the charge as given and, as a result, we conclude that defendant's contention is not preserved for our review ( see People v [*2]Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]; People v Brown , 166 AD3d 1582 , 1583 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1170 [2019]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
Defendant's contentions with respect to County Court's jury charge are not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not object to the jury charge as given ( see People v Clark , 142 AD3d 1339 , 1340 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1143 [2017]; see generally CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]), and we decline to exercise our power to reach those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Blunt
We agree with the People that defense counsel's general objection to the taking of the conditional examination was insufficient to preserve for our review defendant's present contention, i.e., that the court was statutorily prohibited from ordering the conditional examination because the court had the authority to make the witness amenable to legal process by continuing the material witness order instead of allowing her release, inasmuch as the objection lacked the requisite specificity ( see People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996], citing CPL 470.05 [2]; see also People v Ponder , …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brown
By failing to object on the grounds raised on appeal, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court's consciousness-of-guilt instruction to the jury impermissibly shifted the burden of proof ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]; People v Koberstein , 262 AD2d 1032, 1033 [4th Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 798 [1999]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Elder
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court failed to adequately instruct the jury as to reasonable doubt is unpre-served for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cutting
Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his contention that the jury charge failed to adequately instruct the jury as to the burden of proof, including reasonable doubt (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Maddox, 92 AD3d 696, 697 [2012]; cf. People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cutting
Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his contention that the jury charge failed to adequately instruct the jury as to the burden of proof, including reasonable doubt (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Maddox, 92 AD3d 696, 697 [2012]; cf. People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cutting
Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his contention that the jury charge failed to adequately instruct the jury as to the burden of proof, including reasonable doubt (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Maddox, 92 AD3d 696, 697 [2012]; cf. People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Maltese
By failing to object to the jury charge as given, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the jury charge was improper with respect to the issue of voluntary statements (see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Maltese
By failing to object to the jury charge as given, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the jury charge was improper with respect to the issue of voluntary statements (see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Page
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court gave erroneous instructions regarding reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Jin Cheng Lin
Defendant’s general statement at trial that all the counts should go back to the jury because the jury “had some misunderstandings about the law and how it’s applying the facts to the law” did not preserve any specific challenge to the verdict that he now asserts on appeal (see People v Carter, 7 NY3d 875, 876 [2006] [counsel failed to challenge the verdict as repugnant]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996] [to “preserve a question of law reviewable by this Court, an objection or exception must be made with sufficient specificity at the trial”]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Keegan
Defendant failed to object to the jury charge as given, and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the jury charge was improper (see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Keegan
Defendant failed to object to the jury charge as given, and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the jury charge was improper (see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Stubbs
By failing to request that the court give an expanded charge on identification, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to do so {see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Stubbs
By failing to request that the court give an expanded charge on identification, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to do so {see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Chestnut
Here, where defendant repeatedly focused on prejudice and did not object that CPL 200.40 (1) prohibited joinder under the circumstances presented in this case, the trial court was not apprised of and had no opportunity to rule on the latter ground (see People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996] [“to frame and preserve a question of law reviewable by this Court, an objection or exception must be made with sufficient specificity at the trial, when the nisi prius court has an opportunity to consider and deal with the asserted error”]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kravitz
Having failed to make his position known to the court or protest its ruling, the issue is unpreserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]; People v Wynder, 41 AD3d 209, 209 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 884 [2007]; People v McGhee, 4 AD3d 485, 486 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]; People v McLeod, 281 AD2d 325, 326 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 904 [2001]; People v Muniz, 273 AD2d 138, 139 [2000]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Arroyo
The defendant’s contention that the People’s expert in surgery and trauma should not have been permitted to testify that, in his opinion, the complainant’s injuries could not have been self-inflicted is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the testimony with specificity (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]; People v Clas, 54 AD3d 770, 770 [2008]; People v Waugh, 189 AD2d 907, 908 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bolling
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the charge on the defense of justification should have preceded the reading of the elements of the crime (see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ponder
By failing to object to the jury charge, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that County Court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the People had the burden to disprove defendant’s alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Cain, 9 AD3d 827, 828 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 671 [2004]) and in failing to issue a proper circumstantial evidence charge, nor did he preserve for our review his contentions that the court improperly bolstered the testimony of a police witness and improperly marshaled the evidence (see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Stoffel
Defendant did not preserve for our review his contention that the court’s instruction to the jury regarding the insanity defense was improper (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cunningham
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court’s charge to the jury was erroneous (see People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bloom
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the court erroneously instructed the jury with respect to the burden of proof in its charge on reasonable doubt (see, People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002) and the alibi defense (see, People v Babis, 202 AD2d 601 , lv denied 83 NY2d 908 ; People v Howard, 153 AD2d 903, 905 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Timmons
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the jury instructions and verdict sheet were erroneous ( see People v Bolling , 49 AD3d 1330, 1332 [4th Dept 2008]; People v Man Kwong Yeung , 216 AD2d 953 , 953 [4th Dept 1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 873 [1995], reconsideration denied 88 NY2d 967 [1996]; see generally People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Clark
Moreover, we conclude that any challenge by defendant to the adequacy of the jury charge is not preserved for our review because defendant failed to object to the jury charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; Richard, 30 AD3d at 754-755 ; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Clark
Moreover, we conclude that any challenge by defendant to the adequacy of the jury charge is not preserved for our review because defendant failed to object to the jury charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; Richard, 30 AD3d at 754-755 ; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
CLARK, JASON L., PEOPLE v
Moreover, we conclude that any challenge by defendant to the adequacy of the jury charge is not preserved for our review because defendant failed to object to the jury charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; Richard, 30 AD3d at 754-755 ; see generally People v -2- 738 KA 10- 02421 Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Miller
“Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the jury charge on identification inasmuch as he failed to object to that charge” (People v Sweney, 55 AD3d 1350, 1352 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 901 [2008]; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Miller
“Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the jury charge on identification inasmuch as he failed to object to that charge” (People v Sweney, 55 AD3d 1350, 1352 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 901 [2008]; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
MILLER, DERRICK, PEOPLE v
“Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the jury charge on identification inasmuch as he failed to object to that charge” (People v Sweney, 55 AD3d 1350, 1352 , lv denied 11 NY3d 901 ; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Devers
The defendant’s contention that the County Court shifted the burden of proof by improperly instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of duress is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ten Wong, 256 AD2d 427, 428 [1998]; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Carr
Defendant failed to object to Supreme Court’s charge on the defense of justification and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury with respect to attempted murder that a person may be justified in using deadly physical force in defense of a third person (see People v Bolling, 49 AD3d 1330, 1332 [2008]; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Bermudez
Defendant failed to object to any portion of the court’s charge and defendant’s contention is thus unpreserved for our review (see People v Thurston, 303 AD2d 980 [2003]; People v Folger, 292 AD2d 841 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 675 [2002]; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Phillips
Although defendant failed to object to the charge and therefore failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Folger, 292 AD2d 841, 842 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 675 [2002]; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001 [1996]), we nevertheless exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
examined
Cited "see"
Young v. McGinnis
(3×)
See People v. Robinson, 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 1002 , 648 N.Y.S.2d 869, 870 , 671 N.E.2d 1266 (1996).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Jackson
(3×)
Defendant's contention that he was unduly prejudiced by the court's summary of the factual allegations in its preliminary remarks to the venire, and by the remarks made by the prosecutor during her opening statement, are unpreserved ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; see also People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001 [1996]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Timmison
Defendant’s challenge to the language employed by the court in conveying the reasonable doubt standard requires preservation (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467 ; see also, People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001 ), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Norma Jean Robinson, Appellant
v.
Norma Jean Robinson, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 10, 1996.
671 N.E.2d 1266
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains, and Jacqueline F. Oliva for appellant., Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney of Westchester County, White Plains (Maryanne Luciano of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur.
Cited by 328 opinions | Published
Citer courts: W.D. New York (3)
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted, as an accomplice, of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. On her appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant contended, among other things, that the trial court’s instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt impermissibly shifted the burden of proof. The majority of the Appellate Division held that this contention was unpreserved (218 AD2d 673, 674). We agree,[*1002] because to frame and preserve a question of law reviewable by this Court, an objection or exception must be made with sufficient specificity at the trial, when the nisi prius court has an opportunity to consider and deal with the asserted error (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224). That was not done here.
We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick 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.