People v. Bayard, 938 N.E.2d 987 (N.Y. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Bayard, 938 N.E.2d 987 (N.Y. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
52 citation events (52 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Jordan (nyappdiv, 2017-10-26)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jordan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
At trial, the defense highlighted these facts during opening statements and repeatedly used the information during cross-examination to challenge the credibility of various witnesses, including, most notably, the CI and the lead detective on the case (see People v Bayard, 15 NY3d 896, 898 [2010]; People v Brown, 67 NY2d 555, 559 [1986], cert denied 479 US 1093 [1987]; People v Muniz, 93 AD3d 871, 876 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 965 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. McGuire
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
Additionally, the testimony that defendant asked a friend to "hold" the shotgun after the incident supports an intent "to prevent" the production or use of physical evidence in an official proceeding (§ 215.40 [2]; see People v Thompson , 75 AD3d 760, 764 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 896 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Chaneyfield
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: accord · confidence high
The requesting party bears the burden to ask for such a charge "as soon as practicable so that the court can appropriately exercise its discretion and the parties can tailor their trial strategy to avoid substantial possibilities of surprise" ( People v Gonzalez , 68 NY2d 424, 428 [1986] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v Turner , 73 AD3d 1282, 1283-1284 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 896 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Pearson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: accord · confidence high
A request for such a charge “must be raised as soon as practicable so that the court can appropriately exercise its discretion and the parties can tailor their trial strategy to avoid substantial possibilities of surprise” (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428 [1986] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v Turner, 73 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 896 [2010]; see People v Carr, 14 NY3d at 809 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
However, “the mere failure to produce a witness at trial, standing alone, is insufficient to justify the charge” (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]; see People v Turner, 73 AD3d 1282, 1284 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 896 [2010]; People v Lemke, 58 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2009]; People v Smith, 240 AD2d 949, 949 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 880 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Sylvester
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
The People’s challenge to defendant Sylvester’s standing, made after the proof at the suppression hearing was closed, was untimely (see Hunter, 17 NY3d at 727-728 ; see generally People v Turner, 73 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 896 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" SYLVESTER, JOACHIM S., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
The People’s challenge to defendant Sylvester’s standing, made after the proof at the suppression hearing was closed, was untimely (see Hunter, 17 NY3d at 727-728 ; see generally People v Turner, 73 AD3d 1282, 1283 , lv denied 15 NY3d 896 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Alexander
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
A request for such a charge “must be raised as soon as practicable so that the court can appropriately exercise its discretion and the parties can tailor their trial strategy to avoid ‘substantial possibilities of surprise’ ” (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428 [1986], quoting McCormick, Evidence § 272 at 806 [3d ed 1984]; accord People v Turner, 73 AD3d 1282, 1283-1284 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 896 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Tashiem Bayard
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 17, 2010.
938 N.E.2d 987
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Anastasia B. Heeger, Richard M. Greenberg and Rosemary Herbert of counsel), for appellant., Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City Karen Schlossberg and Sheryl Feldman of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 50 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Prior to trial in this robbery prosecution, the People turned over a police omniform system complaint report that included descriptive information relating to the crime and the perpetrators but did not contain the name of the officer that compiled that information. Defendant contends that the People’s failure to disclose the officer’s identity amounts to a Brady violation warranting reversal of his conviction. We disagree. Assuming[*898] that the omitted name had exculpatory or impeachment value, there is no reasonable possibility that, if the officer’s identity had been discovered, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different (see People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67 [1990]). The trial court allowed the defense to make significant use of the unsigned report during cross-examination of the complainant and lead detective and, as an ameliorative measure, permitted the defense to challenge the complainant’s identification by admitting a description provided by a nontestifying eyewitness.

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

Order affirmed in a memorandum.