green
Positive treatment
7.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Steinmetz
Although the People contend that such evidence did not constitute Molineux evidence inasmuch as possession of those items is not illegal or unlawful ( see People v Thomas , 26 AD3d 188 , 188 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 795 [2006]; People v Hucks , 292 AD2d 833, 833 [4th Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 697 [2002]; Brown , 277 AD2d at 974), that contention was not raised at trial and, therefore, is not preserved for our review ( see generally People v Jones , 85 NY2d 998, 999 [1995]).
discussed
Cited "see"
BLOCKER, MARLO J., PEOPLE v
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to introduce evidence that defendant was arrested pursuant to an outstanding warrant inasmuch as “police credibility was [a] central issue in the case [and] this background material was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant’s arrest and to explain the actions of the police” (People v Childs, 8 AD3d 116, 116 , lv denied 3 NY3d 672 ; see generally People v Brown, 277 AD2d 974, 974 , lv denied 96 NY2d 756 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Blocker
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to introduce evidence that defendant was arrested pursuant to an outstanding warrant inasmuch as “police credibility was [a] central issue in the case [and] this background material was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant’s arrest and to explain the actions of the police” (People v Childs, 8 AD3d 116, 116 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 672 [2004]; see generally People v Brown, 277 AD2d 974 , 974 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 756 [2001]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Blocker
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to introduce evidence that defendant was arrested pursuant to an outstanding warrant inasmuch as “police credibility was [a] central issue in the case [and] this background material was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant’s arrest and to explain the actions of the police” (People v Childs, 8 AD3d 116, 116 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 672 [2004]; see generally People v Brown, 277 AD2d 974 , 974 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 756 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Mark Herman
v.
Mark Herman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 13, 2000.
Published
—Judgment unanimously affirmed for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Mark, J. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Attempted Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.