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 1 courts 1985–2023 1 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. Medinagreen1 sentence2018Finally, the jury asked for a definition of "extreme" during its deliberations, and County Court responded with the dictionary definition of that word except for those portions that "everybody agree[d] [were] not applicable." Defendant now complains about that response but, to the extent his contention is preserved for our review, we find that County Court's charge as a whole conveyed the correct standard and was not misleading ( see People v Medina , 18 NY3d 98, 104 [2011]; People v Maher , 89 NY2d 456, 464 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. MAHER (KENNETH)green1 sentence2018Finally, the jury asked for a definition of "extreme" during its deliberations, and County Court responded with the dictionary definition of that word except for those portions that "everybody agree[d] [were] not applicable." Defendant now complains about that response but, to the extent his contention is preserved for our review, we find that County Court's charge as a whole conveyed the correct standard and was not misleading ( see People v Medina , 18 NY3d 98, 104 [2011]; People v Maher , 89 NY2d 456, 464 [1997]). | 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. Umali
green
2 sentences2023Furthermore, the court's charge, taken as a whole conveyed the correct standard to the jury ( see People v Umali , 10 NY3d 417 ). 2009People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417 [2008] [erroneous instruction on justification defense that improperly shifted to defense the prosecution’s burden to prove justification beyond a reasonable doubt was harmless where other instructions repeatedly informed the jury that it was the prosecution’s burden and court advised jury that defendant never had the burden to prove anything]; People v Drake, 7 NY3d 28 [2006] [charge as a whole did not communicate that jurors should disregard expert testimony, but rather that expert testimony was admitted to provide guidance as to evaluating eyewitness testimony]; | 2 | 2009–2023 |
People v. McHarris
green
1 sentence2023The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain statements [*2]made by the prosecutor during her summation is not preserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to object to the prosecutor's statements ( see CPL 470.05; People v Morris , 2 AD3d 652 ; People v McHarris , 297 AD2d 824 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Morris
green
1 sentence2023The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain statements [*2]made by the prosecutor during her summation is not preserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to object to the prosecutor's statements ( see CPL 470.05; People v Morris , 2 AD3d 652 ; People v McHarris , 297 AD2d 824 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Fields
green
1 sentence2009People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417 [2008] [erroneous instruction on justification defense that improperly shifted to defense the prosecution’s burden to prove justification beyond a reasonable doubt was harmless where other instructions repeatedly informed the jury that it was the prosecution’s burden and court advised jury that defendant never had the burden to prove anything]; People v Drake, 7 NY3d 28 [2006] [charge as a whole did not communicate that jurors should disregard expert testimony, but rather that expert testimony was admitted to provide guidance as to evaluating eyewitness testimony]; | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Drake
green
1 sentence2009People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417 [2008] [erroneous instruction on justification defense that improperly shifted to defense the prosecution’s burden to prove justification beyond a reasonable doubt was harmless where other instructions repeatedly informed the jury that it was the prosecution’s burden and court advised jury that defendant never had the burden to prove anything]; People v Drake, 7 NY3d 28 [2006] [charge as a whole did not communicate that jurors should disregard expert testimony, but rather that expert testimony was admitted to provide guidance as to evaluating eyewitness testimony]; | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Coleman
green
1 sentence1995Reading the charge as a whole, the court conveyed the correct standard to the jury (People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Stevenson
neutral
1 sentence1985In any event, although the trial court improperly referred to “wavered” minds in instructing the jury with respect to reasonable doubt, examination of the charge as a whole discloses that the court conveyed the correct rule of law to the jury (People v Stevenson, 104 AD2d 835, 836 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |