green
Positive treatment
Issue: annotated verdict sheet defenseNY ↗
Issue: mere fact defenseNY ↗
Issue: proof claimNY ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
17.7 score
“knight i”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Powell
We conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the use of the transcript of the rap song as an aid to the jury (see People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 939 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Powell
We conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the use of the transcript of the rap song as an aid to the jury (see People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 939 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Johnson
Although generally “the lack of an objection to the annotated verdict sheet by defense counsel cannot be transmuted into consent” (People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477, 484 [1996]), it is well settled that consent to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet may be implied where defense counsel “fail[s] to object to the verdict sheet after having an opportunity to review it” (People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]; see People v Washington, 9 AD3d 499, 500-501 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]; People v Highsmith, 248 AD2d 961, 962 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Johnson
Although generally “the lack of an objection to the annotated verdict sheet by defense counsel cannot be transmuted into consent” (People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477, 484 [1996]), it is well settled that consent to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet may be implied where defense counsel “fail[s] to object to the verdict sheet after having an opportunity to review it” (People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]; see People v Washington, 9 AD3d 499, 500-501 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]; People v Highsmith, 248 AD2d 961, 962 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lebron
Where, as here, population studies are presented to estimate the probability of a coincidental DNA match, a defendant’s challenges to the population studies “go not to admissibility, but to the weight of the evidence, which should be left to the trier of fact” (People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417, 427 [1994]; see People v Parker, 304 AD2d 146, 159 [2003]; People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 938 [2001]; People v Hall, 266 AD2d 160, 161 [1999]; People v Vega, 225 AD2d 890, 893 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cobb
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request to redact certain portions of the transcript of the 911 telephone call (see People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 939 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]; People v Gandy, 152 AD2d 909 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 896 [1989]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McLean
County Court properly admitted in evidence recordings of the 13 calls to 911 made by defendant prior to his arrest (see People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 938-939 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hicks
Defendant consented to the annotations on the verdict sheet and thereby waived his present contention that the verdict sheet was improperly annotated (see CPL 310.20 [2]; People v Brown, 90 NY2d 872, 874 [1997]; People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Washington
Although “the lack of an objection to the annotated verdict sheet by defense counsel [alone] cannot be transmuted into consent” (People v Damiano, supra at 484 ), where a defendant is given adequate opportunity to review the verdict sheet and objects only to a portion of it, the failure to object to the remainder of the verdict sheet constitutes implicit consent to the remaining annotations (see People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]; People v James, 256 AD2d 1149, 1149 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 875 [1999]; People v Highsmith [Bird], 248 AD2d 961, 962 [1998…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rosa
It is settled that prospective jurors "need not 'be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved'" ( People v Cahill , 2 NY3d 14, 38 [2003], quoting Irvin v Dowd , 366 US 717, 722 [1961]; accord People v Maffei , 35 NY3d 264 , 270-271 [2020]; see People v Knight , 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]; People v Butts , 140 AD2d 739, 740 [1988]), and prospective juror No. 288 twice assured that she would "try [her] very best to be fair and impartial." Although defendant seizes upon the victim's use of the word "try," terms such as "'think' or 'try' are 'not . . . talismani…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Cooper
Defendant failed to “demonstrate that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest” (People v Alicea, 61 NY2d 23, 31 [1983]; see People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 939-940 [2001]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Chappell
Moreover, "the record of the reconstruction hearing supports the court's determination" ( People v Russo , 4 AD3d 777, 778 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 806 [2004]; see People v Pinkney , 300 AD2d 79 , 79 [2002], lv denied 99 NY3d 631 [2003]; see also People v Knight , 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Burroughs
Although the victim was unable to identify defendant at trial, i.e, she testified that her attacker ordered her not to look at him, the DNA evidence alone “established defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Harrison, 22 AD3d 236, 236 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 754 [2005]; see People v Rush, 242 AD2d 108, 110 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 860 [1998], lv denied upon reconsideration 92 NY2d 905 [1998]; see also People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 937-938 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Burroughs
Although the victim was unable to identify defendant at trial, i.e, she testified that her attacker ordered her not to look at him, the DNA evidence alone “established defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Harrison, 22 AD3d 236, 236 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 754 [2005]; see People v Rush, 242 AD2d 108, 110 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 860 [1998], lv denied upon reconsideration 92 NY2d 905 [1998]; see also People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 937-938 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
BURROUGHS, CRAIG, PEOPLE v
In addition, defendant admitted at trial that he was not incarcerated and was living in Buffalo on December 10, 2002, the date on which the crimes were committed, and that he did not have a twin brother, who is the only person who could have shared his DNA. -4- 690 KA 11-01761 Although the victim was unable to identify defendant at trial, i.e, she testified that her attacker ordered her not to look at him, the DNA evidence alone “established defendant’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Harrison, 22 AD3d 236, 236 , lv denied 6 NY3d 754 ; see People v Rush, 242 AD2d 108, 110 ,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patrick Proctor
v.
State of New York
v.
State of New York
Claim No. 94601.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 7, 2001.
Published
Citer courts: W.D. New York (1)
—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Court of Claims, Corbett, Jr., J. (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Corbett, Jr., J. — Negligence.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.