green
Positive treatment
Issue: prompt curative instructionNY ↗
Issue: sustained defenseNY ↗
Issue: thorough curative instructionNY ↗
Issue: admonitions defenseNY ↗
43.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McCullough
(3×)
Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude on this record that the court's cautionary instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]), sufficiently informed the jury that the evidence was not being offered for the truth of its content ( see generally People v Griner , 178 AD3d 1436, 1436 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 941 [2020]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Martinez
(2×)
Jurors are presumed to follow the Court's curative instructions ( see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1103-04 [1983]; People v Jackson , 52 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 737 [2008]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Greene
In any event, we find that any error in this regard was harmless ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Greene
In any event, we find that any error in this regard was harmless ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Greene
In any event, we find that any error in this regard was harmless ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rizzo
However, we find that the court's instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]), to disregard the minimal testimony at issue was sufficient to prevent the prejudice asserted by defendant.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rizzo
However, we find that the court's instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]), to disregard the minimal testimony at issue was sufficient to prevent the prejudice asserted by defendant.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Olmeda
As an alternative holding, we find that no additional limiting instruction or explanation was required in light of the court's instructions about sustained objections, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Olmeda
As an alternative holding, we find that no additional limiting instruction or explanation was required in light of the court's instructions about sustained objections, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Perez
Nonetheless, the drastic remedy of a mistrial was unnecessary in this case because the court's thorough curative instructions as to these matters, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]), minimized any prejudice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Perez
Nonetheless, the drastic remedy of a mistrial was unnecessary in this case because the court's thorough curative instructions as to these matters, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]), minimized any prejudice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jenkins
So disregard that to the extent that you paid attention to it." This instruction, in the form requested by defense counsel, was intended to ameliorate any perceived prejudice flowing from the prosecutor's role as an unsworn witness, and the jury is presumed to have followed it ( People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hall
Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude on this record that the court's cautionary instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]), sufficiently alleviated any prejudicial effect of permitting the jury to view the photograph ( see People v Mendez , 104 AD3d 1145, 1145 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 945 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly determined that the testimony from the police officer that defendant's brother said to defendant, "the police are here to talk to you," was not inadmissible hearsay inasmuch as it was not offered for the truth of its content ( see generally People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1103 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jimenez
The jury presumably followed these instructions ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Nolan
Furthermore, this evidence could not have caused defendant any prejudice, particularly in light of the court's thorough limiting instructions, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Davis , 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santos
Further, the jury was pointedly instructed by the court that it was not to consider any of those statements as evidence against the defendant, and the jury is presumed to have followed such admonition (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Green
However, the court’s thorough instructions on the presumption of innocence and burden of proof were sufficient to prevent any undue prejudice (see generally People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bello
The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instruction (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Onikosi
The jury is presumed to have followed that instruction (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Linton
The court sustained defense counsel’s objection, struck the response, recalled the witness to give clarifying testimony favorable to defendant and twice provided curative instructions which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Martinez
The court gave curative instructions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]), and that the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]). *547 Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hamilton
People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]; People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, 142 [1997]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Caquias
The jury is presumed to have followed this instruction (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Dewitt
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after an undercover officer testified that defendant told him that “he had just got out of jail.” The court gave curative instructions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]), and that the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McCombs
In our view, these instructions, which are presumed to have been followed (People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]; People v Harris, 117 AD3d 847, 855 [2014]), minimized any prejudice resulting from the court’s reference to a contempt hearing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Vaz
The court gave curative instructions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]), and which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Vaz
The court gave curative instructions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]), and which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harris
Jurors are presumed to have followed a trial judge’s limiting instructions (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d at 598 ; People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harris
Jurors are presumed to have followed a trial judge’s limiting instructions (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d at 598 ; People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santiago
People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]), we cannot conclude defense counsel provided less than meaningful representation with respect to the issue of the letters (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bruno
It is presumed that the jury followed the court’s instruction (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bruno
It is presumed that the jury followed the court’s instruction (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Morris
People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]), and that presumption is appropriate here.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hill
Furthermore, any potential prejudice was prevented by the court’s thorough instruction, which defense counsel drafted, and which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hill
Furthermore, any potential prejudice was prevented by the court’s thorough instruction, which defense counsel drafted, and which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mendoza
The court struck this testimony and gave curative instructions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]), and which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mendoza
The court struck this testimony and gave curative instructions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]), and which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Haggerty
The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s prompt curative instruction, as well as its other instructions to draw no unfavorable inference from Haggerty’s failure to testify (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Haggerty
The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s prompt curative instruction, as well as its other instructions to draw no unfavorable inference from Haggerty’s failure to testify (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
That contention lacks merit inasmuch as the court subsequently instructed the jury that it could not consider or speculate concerning matters related to sentencing or punishment, and the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instruction (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1103-1104 [1983]; People v McCullough, 8 AD3d 1122, 1122-1123 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
That contention lacks merit inasmuch as the court subsequently instructed the jury that it could not consider or speculate concerning matters related to sentencing or punishment, and the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instruction (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1103-1104 [1983]; People v McCullough, 8 AD3d 1122, 1122-1123 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hanzlik
The court instructed the jury that this mask was not connected to the defendants, and the jury is presumed to have followed that instruction (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McIntosh
In any event, the court’s curative instruction ameliorated any prejudice (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Alston
The court struck this testimony and gave thorough curative instructions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]), and which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Torres
The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Molson
Defendant was present when his accomplice made that statement, and the People sought to admit the statement in evidence to provide circumstantial evidence of defendant’s state of mind, i.e., that defendant went to the crime scene with the accomplice knowing that violence was likely to result, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the accomplice (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102,1103 [1983]; People v Daniels, 265 AD2d 909, 910 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 878 [2000]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Andrade
In sum, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in receiving the videotape and photo array into evidence with appropriate limiting instructions, which the jurors are presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santos
The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instruction not to consider the prior conviction for any purpose other than to evaluate defendant’s credibility (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Sinha
The court provided a suitable curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Calvin Davis, Also Known as Kevin Dunn, Respondent The People of the State of New York v. Benjamin Johnson
v.
Calvin Davis, Also Known as Kevin Dunn, Respondent The People of the State of New York v. Benjamin Johnson
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 31, 1983.
449 N.E.2d 710
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Mario Merola, District Attorney (Robin Dolsky and Steven R. Kartagener of counsel), for appellant., Barry D. Leiwant and William E. Hellerstein for Calvin Davis, respondent., Ronald D. Degen for Benjamin Johnson, respondent.
Cited by 257 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Testimony offered not for the truth of its content but to evidence the fact that the statement was made is not hearsay. Key to the defense offered by defendants was that the victim’s wife had shot him when, during a struggle with defendants, the victim had called out to her to “Shoot the bastards.” That defendants’ version of the events strained credulity does not render the error harmless for credibility is a jury function and there were inconsistencies in and, therefore, problems with the testimony of the victim’s wife as well. The prosecution having been permitted to present through the wife its version of what the victim said and having argued to the jury that the wife would not have fired a gun under the circumstances then existing, the error in excluding defendant’s version of what those circumstances were cannot be deemed harmless.
We consider irrelevant, in determining whether the error was harmless, the fact that in some instances, defendants had answered questions designed to elicit the erroneously excluded statements before the Trial Judge had an opportunity to rule on the prosecutor’s objection thereto.[*1104] Although in such instances, as the People contend, the statements made during the incident were in fact heard by the jury, it cannot be presumed that the jurors would disregard the Trial Judge’s instruction that they could not consider those statements in reaching their verdict.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.
Orders affirmed in. a memorandum.