People v. Reynoso, 814 N.E.2d 456 (N.Y. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Reynoso, 814 N.E.2d 456 (N.Y. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
88 citation events (88 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Coley, 219 A.D.3d 1673 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
2 N.Y.3d at 821 Limiting testimonial statements under confrontation clause34 citing cases“occurred either after defendant exited his home voluntarily or while he stood in his doorway,”2 citing courts quote it · 31 listed here
  • People v. Coley, 219 A.D.3d 1673 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2023).published
    We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying the motion. " '[T]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted' " ( People v Re…
  • People v. Coleman (Amanda), No. 2020 NYSlipOp 50482(U) (N.Y. App. Term. Apr. 27, 2020).published
    Inasmuch as "'the [Confrontation] Clause ... does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted'" ( People v Reynoso , 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004], quoting Crawford v Washington…
  • The People v. Sean Garvin, No. N0. 82 (N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017).published
    Similarly, we have repeatedly and consistently recognized that, even where "the police could have obtained an arrest warrant for [a] defendant from a neutral magistrate before it dispatched . . . members from its force to [the] defendant's…
  • People v. Garvin, 130 A.D.3d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    “The rule announced in Payton and applied in Levan is clear and easily understood: a person enjoys enhanced constitutional protection from a warrantless arrest in the interior of the home, but not on the threshold itself or the exterior” (…
  • People v. Grant, 122 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    In any event, the claim is without merit, as the challenged testimony was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather, to explain the actions of the police in conducting a joint investigation and the events leading up to t…
  • People v. Rahman, 119 A.D.3d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    In any event, the testimony did not violate the defendant’s right to confrontation, as the conversation it recounted was not testimonial in nature and the testimony was not elicited for the truth of the matter asserted (see Crawford v Wash…
  • People v. Irvin, 111 A.D.3d 1294 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the police witness’s testimony equated to the introduction of the victim’s testimonial statements in evidence, we note that “ ‘[t]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimoni…
  • People v. Cade, 110 A.D.3d 1238 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    In any event, “[t]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted” (People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004] [internal quotation marks and…
  • People v. Gonzales, 111 A.D.3d 147 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 6 cites
    Our dissenting colleagues contend that in People v Reynoso (2 NY3d at 821), the Court of Appeals upheld an arrest “in the doorway” of a defendant’s home (infra at 154), but that case only highlights the constitutional significance of the l…
  • People v. Jenkins, 93 A.D.3d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published
    The defendant’s contentions that the admission into evidence of a certain statement a nontestifying codefendant made to the police violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Bruton v United States ( 391 US 123 [1968]), and u…
Show 21 more citing cases
  • People v. Davis, 87 A.D.3d 1332 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2011).published
    In any event, “ ‘[t]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted’ ” (People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004], quoting Crawford v Washi…
  • People v. Harris, 88 A.D.3d 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011).published 2 cites
    People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]). 5 Viewed in that light, the probative value of this evidence is as limited as the other evidence offered to establish defendant’s consciousness of guilt.
  • People v. Parham, 74 A.D.3d 1237 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    The hearing court correctly determined that the defendant was lawfully arrested after his sister consented to the entry of detectives into her home, where the defendant was apprehended after he was discovered hiding under a bed (see Payton…
  • People v. Ragsdale, 68 A.D.3d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    In any event, where, as here, “the evidence was admitted not for the truth of the statement, but to show the detectives’ state of mind and to demonstrate how the police investigation evolved” (People v Leftenant, 22 AD3d 603, 605 [2005]),…
  • People v. Orlando, 61 A.D.3d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    “The court properly instructed the jury that the testimony was admitted for the limited purpose of explaining the detective’s actions and their effect on the defendant, and not for the truth of the codefendant’s statement” (People v Ewell,…
  • People v. Chandler, 59 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    The defendant’s contention that the detective’s testimony violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Crawfor…
  • People v. Wright, 54 A.D.3d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    The testimony was admitted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to demonstrate how the police investigation evolved and to explain the sequence of events leading to the defendant’s apprehension (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 3…
  • People v. Reyes, 49 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    In any event, the defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him was not violated since the challenged statements were not admitted for their truth but to show the police detectives’ state of mind and to demonstrate how the police inv…
  • Commonwealth v. Pelletier, 879 N.E.2d 125 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008).published
    Frazier, Minn. Ct. App. No. A06-1068, slip. op. at 5 (Sept. 25, 2007); Thong Le v. State, 913 So. 2d 913, 942 (Miss.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1004 (2005); State v. White, 155 N.H. 119, 125 (2007); People v. Reynoso, 2 N.Y.3d 820, 821 (2004…
  • People v. Reynolds, 46 A.D.3d 845 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).published
    Thus, the challenged testimony did not violate the defendant’s right to confront witnesses (see People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]; People v Ruis, 11 AD3d 714, 714-715 [2004]).
  • People v. Marji, 43 A.D.3d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).published
    In any event, the prosecution was properly permitted to question the police detectives about the knowledge they derived from other persons for the nonhearsay purpose of rebutting the defense argument that the police had conducted a biased…
  • People v. Dean, 41 A.D.3d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).published
    The defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him was not violated, since the challenged statements were not admitted for their truth (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 , 59 n 9 [2004]; People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820…
  • People v. Davis, 23 A.D.3d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).published
    Here, however, the Confrontation Clause was not implicated because, as County Court properly instructed the jury, the statement was not admitted for its truth (i.e., that defendant and Craft were the shooters) but, rather, for the limited…
  • People v. Wisdom, 23 A.D.3d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).published
    Inasmuch as “ ‘the [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted’ ” (People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004], quoting Crawford v Washingto…
  • People v. Leftenant, 22 A.D.3d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005).published
    Since the hearing testimony established that the defendant was arrested outside the home where he was staying as an overnight guest, there was no Payton violation (see Payton v New York, 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821…
  • People v. Rodriguez, 21 A.D.3d 1400 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2005).published
    The record establishes that defendant was arrested after step ping out of his house onto the front porch of his house and, contrary to the contention of defendant, his warrantless arrest outside his house or at the threshold thereof did no…
  • People v. Ryan, 17 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).published 2 cites
    Furthermore, there being no claim that defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine either Haskins or Rolon, the admissibility of the accomplice statements hinges upon a determination of whether the statements were admitted for their…
  • People v. Ruis, 11 A.D.3d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004).published
    Although it is a violation of the Confrontation Clause for a prosecutor to elicit testimony which implies that a non-testifying witness identified the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime (see Mason v Scully, 16 F3d 38, 42-43 [1994]), “…
  • People v. Rodriguez, 180 A.D.3d 1343 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020).published
    Thus, Payton is not violated when a warrantless arrest occurs "in the threshold of a residence . . . , provided that the suspect has voluntarily answered the door and the police have not crossed the threshold" ( People v Garvin , 30 NY3d 1…
  • People v. Prince, 128 A.D.3d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    In any event, the testimony “was properly admitted for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of ‘establishing the reasons behind the detective’s actions, and to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant’s arrest’ ” (People v Spe…
  • People v. Granger, 122 A.D.3d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s further contention, his arrest in the hallway of a single room residence hotel did not violate his rights under Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]; see People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]; Peop…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Gustavo Reynoso, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 10, 2004.
Published opinion
814 N.E.2d 456
2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1541
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York City, and Steven R. Bernhard for appellant., Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Traci R. Wilkerson of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith Concur.
Cited by 61 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We reject defendant’s claim that his warrantless arrest violated Payton v New York (445 US 573 [1980]). The record reveals that the arrest occurred either after defendant exited his home voluntarily or while he stood in his doorway.

Further, there is no merit to defendant’s claim that his constitutional right to confront witnesses was violated when the trial court allowed the People to elicit a statement that a non-testifying codefendant had made to a detective. The statement was admitted not to establish the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show the detective’s state of mind. As the United States Supreme Court recently observed, “[t]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted” (Crawford v Washington, 541 US —, — n 9, 124 S Ct 1354, 1369 n 9 [2004], citing Tennessee v Street, 471 US 409, 414 [1985]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

[*778] 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.