People v. McRae, 933 N.E.2d 207 (NY 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. McRae, 933 N.E.2d 207 (NY 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Highsmith (nyappdiv, 2015-01-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Highsmith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The employee’s testimony and defendant’s statement “ ‘harmonized’ ” with the accomplice testimony (People v McRae, 15 NY3d 761, 762 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 902 [2010]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Highsmith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The employee’s testimony and defendant’s statement “ ‘harmonized’ ” with the accomplice testimony (People v McRae, 15 NY3d 761, 762 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 902 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Pratcher
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Therefore, “some evidence may be considered corroborative even though it simply supports the accomplice testimony, and does not independently incriminate the defendant” (id.; see People v Lipford, 129 AD3d 1528, 1529 [2015]), or if it “ ‘harmonized’ ” with the accomplices’ testimony (People v McRae, 15 NY3d 761, 762 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 902 [2010]; see People v Highsmith, 124 AD3d 1363, 1364 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1202 [2015]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Pratcher
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Therefore, “some evidence may be considered corroborative even though it simply supports the accomplice testimony, and does not independently incriminate the defendant” (id.; see People v Lipford, 129 AD3d 1528, 1529 [2015]), or if it “ ‘harmonized’ ” with the accomplices’ testimony (People v McRae, 15 NY3d 761, 762 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 902 [2010]; see People v Highsmith, 124 AD3d 1363, 1364 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1202 [2015]).
discussed Cited "see" PRATCHER, SHAQUAR, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Therefore, “some evidence may be considered corroborative even though it simply supports the accomplice testimony, and does not independently incriminate the defendant” (id.; see People v Lipford, 129 AD3d 1528, 1529 ), or if it “ ‘harmonized’ ” with the accomplices’ testimony (People v McRae, 15 NY3d 761, 762 , rearg denied 15 NY3d 902 ; see People v Highsmith, 124 AD3d 1363, 1364 , lv denied 25 NY3d 1202 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
James McRae, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 1, 2010.
933 N.E.2d 207
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, James McRae, appellant pro se., Francis D. Phillips, II, District Attorney, Goshen (Elizabeth L. Guinup and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Because the accomplice testimony was corroborated with independent evidence as well as evidence that “harmonized” with the accomplice testimony, the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant’s convictions (see People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 194 [2010]). Next, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when denying defendant’s eve-of-trial application to relieve his second court-appointed attorney and to appoint substitute counsel. Finally, defendant argues that the trial judge’s failure to properly instruct the jury on the affirmative defense to Penal Law § 160.15 (4) affected the entire verdict. This claim is unpreserved for our review.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

[*763] On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.