green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Heffner
We reject that contention inasmuch as there is insufficient proof to establish that the prior allegations "were false or suggestive of a pattern that casts doubt on the validity of, or bore a significant probative relation to, the instant charges" ( People v McKnight , 55 AD3d 1315, 1316 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hill , 17 AD3d 1081, 1082 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 806 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Barksdale
Here, the record fully supports the court's determination that defendant "waived his Miranda rights and did not make an unequivocal assertion of his right to remain silent at that time" ( People v Young , 153 AD3d 1618, 1619 [4th Dept 2017]; see People v Ingram , 19 AD3d 101, 102 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 806 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rolfe
Thus, this Court must “weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v Davis, 72 AD3d 1274, 1276 [2010]). “ ‘Whether an individual’s level of intoxication negates the element of intent to commit a crime lies within the domain of the jury as the trier of fact’ ” (People v Hazen, 20 AD3d 586, 588 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 806 [2005], quoting People v Keller, 246 AD2d 828, 829…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Baltes
We agree, however, with defendant’s contention that County Court erred when it refused to grant his motion to dismiss the counts of the indictment charging obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest based on the insufficiency of the People’s opening statement at trial. 2 Pursuant to CPL 260.30 (3), the People are required to make an opening statement to the jury, which “should set forth the nature of the charge[s] against the accused and state briefly the facts [the People] expect[ ] to prove, along with the evidence [the People] plan[ ] to introduc…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Webb
With respect to the remaining photographs, we conclude that they were properly admitted in evidence because they were also relevant to material issues in the case, and “[p]hotographic evidence should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant” (People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 370 [1973], rearg denied 33 NY2d 657 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974]; see People v Giles, 20 AD3d 863, 864 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 806 [2005]), which was not the case here.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hilliard
While clearly knowledgeable about material facts related to these crimes, defendant made no showing, as required, that the incarcerated Wells “would be expected to testify favorably” for the People (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428 [1986]; see People v Harris, 19 AD3d 871, 874 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 806 [2005]; see also People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 197 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Khuong Dinh Pham
In reviewing legal sufficiency, the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970, 971 [1997]; People v Lopez, 9 AD3d 692, 694 [2004]) and must be upheld if there exists “any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged” (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987] [citation omitted]; see People v Haight, 19 AD3d 714…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Williams
“Photographic evidence should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant,” and that was not the case here (People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 370 [1973], rearg denied 33 NY2d 657 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974]; see People v Giles, 20 AD3d 863, 864 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 806 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
HINES.
v.
HINES.
New York Court of Appeals.
Aug 8, 2005.
Published
Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied. (R.S. Smith, J.).