green
Positive treatment
9.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gillie
"When there is conflicting expert evidence on the issue of criminal responsibility, the [*2]jury is generally free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the opinion of any expert, at least in the absence of a serious flaw in the expert's testimony" ( People v Smith , 217 AD2d 221, 234-235 [4th Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 977 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Stoffel , 17 AD3d 992, 993 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Fitzrandolph
"Where, as here, there was conflicting expert evidence concerning criminal responsibility, the [court] was free to accept or reject in whole or in part the opinion of any expert . . . , at least in the absence of a serious flaw in the expert's testimony" ( People v Hershey , 85 AD3d 1661, 1662 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 883 [2012], cert denied 566 US 1022 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Stoffel , 17 AD3d 992, 993 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Harris
Thus, upon remittal, “the court should entertain a motion by the People, should the People be so disposed, to vacate the plea ... in its entirety” (People v Irwin, 166 AD2d 924, 925 [1990]; see People v Speed, 13 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]; see generally People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 307-308 [1981]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Harris
Thus, upon remittal, “the court should entertain a motion by the People, should the People be so disposed, to vacate the plea ... in its entirety” (People v Irwin, 166 AD2d 924, 925 [1990]; see People v Speed, 13 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]; see generally People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 307-308 [1981]).
discussed
Cited "see"
HARRIS, JOSEPH A., PEOPLE v
Thus, upon remittal, “the court should entertain a motion by the People, should the People be so disposed, to vacate the plea . . . in its entirety” (People v Irwin, 166 AD2d 924, 925 ; see People v Speed, 13 AD3d 1083, 1084 , lv denied 5 NY3d 795 ; see generally People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 307-308 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Witt
Here, we conclude that the police officer “had an ‘objective, credible reason’ for approaching [the] parked vehicle and requesting information” based upon the supermarket manager’s report (People v Virges, 118 AD3d 1445, 1445 [2014], quoting Ocasio, 85 NY2d at 984 ; see People v Thomas, 19 AD3d 32, 33 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]), “thereby rendering the police encounter lawful at its inception” (People v Cady, 103 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2013]; see People v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
WITT, THOMAS G., PEOPLE v
Here, we conclude that the police officer “had an ‘objective, credible reason’ for approaching [the] parked vehicle and requesting information” based upon the supermarket manager’s report (People v Virges, 118 AD3d 1445, 1445 , quoting Ocasio, 85 NY2d at 984 ; see People v Thomas, 19 AD3d 32, 33 , lv denied 5 NY3d 795 ), “thereby rendering the police encounter lawful at its inception” (People v Cady, 103 AD3d 1155, 1156 ; see People v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 , lv denied 14 NY3d 844 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Witt
Here, we conclude that the police officer “had an ‘objective, credible reason’ for approaching [the] parked vehicle and requesting information” based upon the supermarket manager’s report (People v Virges, 118 AD3d 1445, 1445 [2014], quoting Ocasio, 85 NY2d at 984 ; see People v Thomas, 19 AD3d 32, 33 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]), “thereby rendering the police encounter lawful at its inception” (People v Cady, 103 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2013]; see People v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Plumley
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the fact that the severely injured victim identified defendant in a photo array approximately five days after the victim failed to identify defendant in a showup procedure that was conducted at the hospital where the victim was undergoing treatment is of no consequence here. “ £[M]ultiple pretrial identification procedures are not inherently suggestive’ ” (People v Morgan, 96 AD3d 1418, 1419 [2012], Iv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]; see People v Peterkin, 81 AD3d 1358, 1359 [2011], Iv denied 17 NY3d 799 [2011]) and, in this case, the police offi…
discussed
Cited "see"
PLUMLEY, MICHAEL, PEOPLE v
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the fact that the severely injured victim identified defendant in a photo array approximately five days after the victim failed to identify defendant in a showup procedure that was conducted at the hospital where the victim was undergoing treatment is of no consequence here. “ ‘[M]ultiple pretrial identification procedures are not inherently suggestive’ ” (People v Morgan, 96 AD3d 1418, 1419 , lv denied 20 NY3d 987 ; see People v Peterkin, 81 AD3d 1358, 1359 , lv denied 17 NY3d 799 ) and, in this case, the police officer who testified on be…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Plumley
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the fact that the severely injured victim identified defendant in a photo array approximately five days after the victim failed to identify defendant in a showup procedure that was conducted at the hospital where the victim was undergoing treatment is of no consequence here. “ £[M]ultiple pretrial identification procedures are not inherently suggestive’ ” (People v Morgan, 96 AD3d 1418, 1419 [2012], Iv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]; see People v Peterkin, 81 AD3d 1358, 1359 [2011], Iv denied 17 NY3d 799 [2011]) and, in this case, the police offi…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hamm
“Where, as here, there was conflicting expert testimony on the issue of defendant’s mental condition, the determination of the trier of fact to accept or reject the opinion of an expert, in whole or in part, is entitled to deference” [People v Amin, 294 AD2d 863, 863 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 672 , 674 [2002]; see People v Stoffel, 17 AD3d 992, 993 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hamm
“Where, as here, there was conflicting expert testimony on the issue of defendant’s mental condition, the determination of the trier of fact to accept or reject the opinion of an expert, in whole or in part, is entitled to deference” [People v Amin, 294 AD2d 863, 863 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 672 , 674 [2002]; see People v Stoffel, 17 AD3d 992, 993 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
HAMM, DARYL, PEOPLE v
“Where, as here, there was conflicting expert testimony on the issue -2- 752 KA 10-01591 of defendant’s mental condition, the determination of the trier of fact to accept or reject the opinion of an expert, in whole or in part, is entitled to deference” (People v Amin, 294 AD2d 863, 863 , lv denied 98 NY2d 672 , 674; see People v Stoffel, 17 AD3d 992, 993 , lv denied 5 NY3d 795 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Roy
“Although [the court] made some further inquiries of defendant, none of them [was] even remotely sufficient to determine that the plea was entered intelligently and with knowledge of the nature of the charge and with the requisite criminal intent” (id. at 677; see People v Speed, 13 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Butera
In evaluating a justification defense, a jury must determine whether the defendant “actually believed that deadly force was necessary . . . [and must] assess the reasonableness of defendant’s belief that he was in deadly peril by judging the situation from the point of view of defendant as though [the jury was] actually in his place” (People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559-560 [1990]; see People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 114-115 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 19 AD3d 1069 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Jones
As has been repeatedly held, the use of a knife constitutes the use of deadly physical force as a matter of law (see id. at 569; see also People v Steele, 19 AD3d 175, 175-176 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]; People v Davis, 118 AD2d 206, 209 [1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 768 [1986]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
STUBBLEFIELD
v.
STUBBLEFIELD
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 26, 2005.
Published
Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied. (Rosenblatt, J.).