Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Crimminsgreen1 sentence2014The evidence against the defendant was not overwhelming, so there is no basis for the application of harmless error analysis (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v Brown, 26 AD3d 392, 393 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence2014The evidence against the defendant was not overwhelming, so there is no basis for the application of harmless error analysis (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v Brown, 26 AD3d 392, 393 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Damianogreen1 sentence2010The Court of Appeals expressly rejected the application of harmless error analysis to verdict sheet errors in People v Damiano ( 87 NY2d 477, 484-485 [1996]), and the Court thereafter wrote that the submission of a verdict sheet to which the defendant had not consented “affects the mode of proceedings prescribed by law” (People v Collins, 99 NY2d 14, 17 [2002]), which constitutes per se reversible error (see generally People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2010The Court of Appeals expressly rejected the application of harmless error analysis to verdict sheet errors in People v Damiano ( 87 NY2d 477, 484-485 [1996]), and the Court thereafter wrote that the submission of a verdict sheet to which the defendant had not consented “affects the mode of proceedings prescribed by law” (People v Collins, 99 NY2d 14, 17 [2002]), which constitutes per se reversible error (see generally People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Glenngreen1 sentence2006Since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of assault in the third degree was not overwhelming, the convictions on those counts may not be sustained by the application of harmless error analysis (see People v Cain, 236 AD2d 788, 789 [1997]; see also People v Glenn, 52 NY2d 880, 881 [1981]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Caingreen1 sentence2006Since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of assault in the third degree was not overwhelming, the convictions on those counts may not be sustained by the application of harmless error analysis (see People v Cain, 236 AD2d 788, 789 [1997]; see also People v Glenn, 52 NY2d 880, 881 [1981]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Novoagreen1 sentence1987Such speculation would, of course, undermine the very basis of our prior decisions — that even "a judge’s impartial determination as to what portions may be useful to the defense, is no substitute for the single-minded devotion of counsel for the accused” (People v Perez, supra, at 160; see, People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490, 499 ; People v Rosario, supra, at 290 ). 4 It is this inability of a reviewing court, to ascertain how defense counsel might have employed the withheld material, that distinguishes cases involving Rosario violations from cases involving other errors where the application of har | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kisoon
green
1 sentence2010The Court of Appeals expressly rejected the application of harmless error analysis to verdict sheet errors in People v Damiano ( 87 NY2d 477, 484-485 [1996]), and the Court thereafter wrote that the submission of a verdict sheet to which the defendant had not consented “affects the mode of proceedings prescribed by law” (People v Collins, 99 NY2d 14, 17 [2002]), which constitutes per se reversible error (see generally People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129 [2007]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Hamlin
green
1 sentence1988Recently, in People v Hamlin ( 71 NY2d 750, 758 ) the Court of Appeals provided the following instructive language with respect to the application of harmless error analysis in cases of Bruton/Cruz error: "When considering harmless error in a Bruton case, the court must determine on the basis of its own reading of the record the probable impact of the codefendant’s admissions on the 'minds of an average jury’ and whether they were sufficiently prejudicial to defendant to require reversal of the conviction and a new trial (see, Harrington v California, 395 US 250, 254 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Schneble v. Florida
green
1 sentence1988In making that assessment, we consider a number of factors, including how comprehensive defendant’s statement is and whether it satisfactorily explains his or her part in the crime without reference to the codefendant’s statement, whether it is corroborated or contradicted by other objective evidence, and whether defendant has reiterated it on one or more subsequent occasions (see, Schneble v Florida, 405 US 427, 431 , supra). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Harrington v. California
green
1 sentence1988Recently, in People v Hamlin ( 71 NY2d 750, 758 ) the Court of Appeals provided the following instructive language with respect to the application of harmless error analysis in cases of Bruton/Cruz error: "When considering harmless error in a Bruton case, the court must determine on the basis of its own reading of the record the probable impact of the codefendant’s admissions on the 'minds of an average jury’ and whether they were sufficiently prejudicial to defendant to require reversal of the conviction and a new trial (see, Harrington v California, 395 US 250, 254 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Rosario
green
1 sentence1987Such speculation would, of course, undermine the very basis of our prior decisions — that even "a judge’s impartial determination as to what portions may be useful to the defense, is no substitute for the single-minded devotion of counsel for the accused” (People v Perez, supra, at 160; see, People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490, 499 ; People v Rosario, supra, at 290 ). 4 It is this inability of a reviewing court, to ascertain how defense counsel might have employed the withheld material, that distinguishes cases involving Rosario violations from cases involving other errors where the application of har | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.