green
Positive treatment
7.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Arnold
Defendant contends that the calls were nonhearsay evidence of his state of mind, that they were relevant to his claim that the police coerced his confession by promising him that he would be released if he confessed, and that the court’s ruling denied him the right to present a defense. “ ‘The mere utterance of a statement, without regard to its truth, may indicate circumstantially the state of mind of the hearer or of the declarant’ ” (People v Cromwell, 71 AD3d 414, 415 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 803 [2010]; see People v Gibian, 76 AD3d 583 , 584-585 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 920 [2…
discussed
Cited "see"
ARNOLD, FREDDERICK D., PEOPLE v
Defendant contends that the calls were nonhearsay evidence of his state of mind, that they were relevant to his claim that the police coerced his confession by promising him that he would be released if he confessed, and that the court’s ruling denied him the right to present a defense. “ ‘The mere utterance of a statement, without regard to its truth, may indicate circumstantially the state of mind of the hearer or of the declarant’ ” (People v Cromwell, 71 AD3d 414, 415 , lv denied 15 NY3d 803 ; see People v Gibian, 76 AD3d 583 , 584-585, lv denied 15 NY3d 920 ), and we agree with …
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Arnold
Defendant contends that the calls were nonhearsay evidence of his state of mind, that they were relevant to his claim that the police coerced his confession by promising him that he would be released if he confessed, and that the court’s ruling denied him the right to present a defense. “ ‘The mere utterance of a statement, without regard to its truth, may indicate circumstantially the state of mind of the hearer or of the declarant’ ” (People v Cromwell, 71 AD3d 414, 415 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 803 [2010]; see People v Gibian, 76 AD3d 583 , 584-585 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 920 [2…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hogan
As defendant acknowledges, the “odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants” (People v Cuffie, 109 AD3d 1200 , 1201 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 22 NY3d 1087 [2014]; see People v Black, 59 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 851 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hogan
As defendant acknowledges, the “odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants” (People v Cuffie, 109 AD3d 1200 , 1201 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 22 NY3d 1087 [2014]; see People v Black, 59 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 851 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
HOGAN, MICHAEL T., PEOPLE v
As defendant acknowledges, the “odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants” (People v Cuffie, 109 AD3d -2- 119 KA 14-00403 1200, 1201 [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 22 NY3d 1087 ; see People v Black, 59 AD3d 1050, 1051 , lv denied 12 NY3d 851 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rasul
As for the propriety of the subsequent pat down and/or search of defendant, “it is well established that [t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants” (People v Cuffie, 109 AD3d at 1201 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Black, 59 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 851 [2009]; People v Badger, 52 AD3d 231, 232 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 955 [2008]; People v Pierre, 8 AD3d 904, 905 [2004], lv…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rasul
As for the propriety of the subsequent pat down and/or search of defendant, “it is well established that [t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants” (People v Cuffie, 109 AD3d at 1201 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Black, 59 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 851 [2009]; People v Badger, 52 AD3d 231, 232 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 955 [2008]; People v Pierre, 8 AD3d 904, 905 [2004], lv…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
PeoplevRasul
As for the propriety of the subsequent pat down and/or search of defendant, "it is well established that [t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants" (People v Cuffie, 109 AD3d at 1201 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Black, 59 1 Supreme Court's denial of the suppression motion survives defendant's guilty plea (see CPL 710.70 [2]; People v Dozier, 115 AD3d 1001, 1001 [2014]; People v Ross, 106 AD3d…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
ARMSTRONG.
v.
ARMSTRONG.
New York Court of Appeals.
May 11, 2009.
Published
Application in criminal cases for leave to appeal denied. (Read, J.)