Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Webb
(2×)
We note that this witness did not specifically testify about how it was that he learned of defendant's identity ( cf. People v Gordon , 101 AD3d 1473, 1474 [3d Dept 2012]; People v Wilson , 101 AD3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1066 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Richberg
Here, however, Sergeant Tribble’s testimony and the subsequent testimony relating to the discovery of the weapon did not violate the Confrontation Clause, since there was no direct implication that the nontestifying witness told the police that the defendant possessed the knife, disposed of it, or tried to conceal it (see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 764, 765-766 [2012]; cf. People v Nesbitt, 77 AD3d 854 [2010]; People v Fairweather, 69 AD3d 876, 877 [2010]; People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cedeno
Furthermore, the admission of Detective Wilkowski’s testimony regarding statements made to him by the defendant’s self-described girlfriend did not violate the Bruton rule (see Bruton v United States, 391 US 123 [1968]) or the defendant’s right of confrontation (see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 764, 765-766 [2012]; cf. People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]; People v Johnson, 7 AD3d 732 [2004]; People v Geoghegan, 68 AD2d 279, 284 [1979], affd 51 NY2d 45 [1980]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cedeno
Furthermore, the admission of Detective Wilkowski’s testimony regarding statements made to him by the defendant’s self-described girlfriend did not violate the Bruton rule (see Bruton v United States, 391 US 123 [1968]) or the defendant’s right of confrontation (see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 764, 765-766 [2012]; cf. People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]; People v Johnson, 7 AD3d 732 [2004]; People v Geoghegan, 68 AD2d 279, 284 [1979], affd 51 NY2d 45 [1980]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
David Tucker
v.
David Tucker
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 5, 2012.
Published
We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.