People v. Barnes, 58 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Barnes, 58 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“de-fense counsel expressly waived any and all objections to the admission of testimony as to the pretrial photographic identification, and to the photographs themselves, after he opened the door to this subject during cross-examination of the witness.”
12 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Williams v. Herbert (nywd, 2006-06-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Williams v. Herbert
W.D.N.Y. · 2006 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
de-fense counsel expressly waived any and all objections to the admission of testimony as to the pretrial photographic identification, and to the photographs themselves, after he opened the door to this subject during cross-examination of the witness.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Cannady
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Rohrlich v Follette, 20 NY2d 297, 300 ; see also, People v Barnes, 58 AD2d 608 [substitution of alternate juror without defendant’s consent and over his objection]; People v Leon, 28 AD2d 912 [substitution based upon defense counsel’s consent]; People v Adamson, 108 Misc 2d 394 [stipulation of counsel on record and in defendant’s presence]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
David Barnes
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 13, 1977.
58 A.D.2d 608
1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12659
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 72%
Citer courts: W.D. New York (2)

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 26, 1974, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, indictment dismissed. In our opinion the substitution (without appellant’s consent and over his objection) of an alternate juror after deliberations had commenced was prejudicial error (see People v Ryan, 19 NY2d 100). The subject theft involved the taking of $24 worth of meat from a supermarket. Appellant did not personally commit any act of violence. He has served his sentence. Under the circumstances, a dismissal of the indictment, rather than a new trial, is appropriate (see People v Kvalheim, 17 NY2d 510; cf. People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.