green
Positive treatment
Issue: record establishes defenseNY ↗
Issue: record indicates defenseNY ↗
Issue: made sufficient inquiryNY ↗
17.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Steward
(2×)
Counsel appears to have made a strategic legal decision to refrain from calling that witness or attempting to elicit testimony about his statement ( see People v Smith , 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cleveland
The record also establishes that, upon investigation, defense counsel discovered that the customer would not be able to provide exculpatory testimony, and we thus conclude that "[defense c]ounsel's decision not to call [that] witness, whose testimony he assessed as weak, was a strategic legal decision which does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel" ( People v Smith , 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Addison
Instead, the record establishes that defense counsel sufficiently investigated the facts and had strategic and legitimate reasons for declining to call the prospective witnesses, including reasonable concerns about the admissibility of portions of the proposed testimony, the inconsistent accounts of the subject events offered by the codefendant passenger and the possibility that his testimony would be inculpatory, and the weakness of the proposed testimony arising from credibility problems with each of the prospective witnesses ( see People v Smith , 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]; People v Wheeler ,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Sheard
Whether to call a witness is a strategic decision to be made by defense counsel (see People v Smith, 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]; People v Llanos, 13 AD3d 76 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 833 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Crowder
There were reasonable explanations for trial counsel’s decision not to call as witnesses three codefendants who had been convicted prior to defendant’s trial (see People v Smith, 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]; People v Pedraza, 56 AD3d 390 , 391 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 761 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Crowder
There were reasonable explanations for trial counsel’s decision not to call as witnesses three codefendants who had been convicted prior to defendant’s trial (see People v Smith, 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]; People v Pedraza, 56 AD3d 390 , 391 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 761 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
Further, defendant’s hindsight disagreement with counsel’s tactical decision not to call a specific witness, whose testimony was potentially harmful to the defense and would have, at a minimum, placed defendant at the scene, does not amount to ineffective assistance (see People v Smith, 82 NY2d 731, 732-733 [1993]; see also People v Llanos, 13 AD3d 76 , 77 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 833 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Peters
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction on the ground that his trial counsel was ineffective (see People v Smith, 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; People v Shaw, 232 AD2d 174, 175 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
NESMITH, VENICE J., PEOPLE v
Morever, even though defendant’s other alibi witness was impeached by a prior statement that she made to a defense investigator, “counsel cannot be held ineffective because the People impeached the alibi witness[ ]” (People v Wragg, 26 NY3d 403, 412 ; see People v Collins, 203 AD2d 888, 889 , lv denied 84 NY2d 934 , reconsideration denied 85 NY2d 861 ; see generally People v Smith, 82 NY2d 731, 733 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Nesmith
Morever, even though defendant’s other alibi witness was impeached by a prior statement that she made to a defense investigator, “counsel cannot be held ineffective because the People impeached the alibi witness [ ]” (People v Wragg, 26 NY3d 403, 412 [2015]; see People v Collins, 203 AD2d 888, 889 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 934 [1994], reconsideration denied 85 NY2d 861 [1995]; see generally People v Smith, 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Nesmith
Morever, even though defendant’s other alibi witness was impeached by a prior statement that she made to a defense investigator, “counsel cannot be held ineffective because the People impeached the alibi witness [ ]” (People v Wragg, 26 NY3d 403, 412 [2015]; see People v Collins, 203 AD2d 888, 889 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 934 [1994], reconsideration denied 85 NY2d 861 [1995]; see generally People v Smith, 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Van Gorder v. ALLERD
(3×)
See, e.g., People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d 731 , 602 N.Y.S.2d 322, 323 , 621 N.E.2d 689 (N.Y.1993) (“Counsel’s decision not to call a witness, whose testimony he assessed as weak, was a strategic legal decision which does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel[.] ”) (citing People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 150-152 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 893 , 429 N.E.2d 400 (N.Y.1981)); People v. Llanos, 13 A.D.3d 76 , 785 N.Y.S.2d 83 (3d Dep’t 2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Mark Smith, Also Known as David Early, Appellant
v.
Mark Smith, Also Known as David Early, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 2, 1993.
621 N.E.2d 689
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Lawrence A. Vogelman, New York City, Barry C. Scheck and Ellen Yaroshefsky for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Donna Krone of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith Concur.
Cited by 32 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. For the reasons stated by the majority at the Appellate Division, we reject defendant’s argument that the trial court’s inquiry pertaining to his request for new counsel was inadequate. Under the circumstances here, we conclude that no further inquiry was required. Moreover, we find no merit in defen[*733] dant’s contention that his attorney provided inadequate representation. Counsel’s decision not to call a witness, whose testimony he assessed as weak, was a strategic legal decision which does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 150-152). Finally, defendant’s arguments concerning the prosecutor’s summation are merit-less. The statements complained of constituted nothing more than permissible references to the absence of credible testimony supporting defendant’s alibi defense (see, People v Allen, 121 AD2d 453, 454, affd 69 NY2d 915).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith 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.