objections defense in New York

2018The court also properly sustained the prosecutor's objections to defense summation comments that were based on wholesale speculation, violated the court's evidentiary rulings, or were not fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Paixao , 23 AD3d 677, 678 ; People v Bistonath , 216 AD2d 478, 479 ; People v Barreau , 183 AD2d 904 ).

2009The Court of Appeals previously addressed the issue of affirmative defenses being submitted to a jury at the request of the People over the objections of the defense (see People v DeGina, 72 NY2d 768 [1988]).

2008Regarding petitioner’s assertion that he was denied the right to present testimony from the inmate he was found guilty of assaulting and the facility nurse who examined that inmate, such a claim is unpreserved for our review by virtue of petitioner’s failure to lodge the appropriate objections at the hearing (see Matter of Towles v Selsky, 12 AD3d 737, 738 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 706 [2005]).

2005The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor’s objections and the trial court’s rulings violated his constitutional rights (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Tucker, 21 AD3d 387 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]).

2005The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor’s objections and the trial court’s rulings violated his constitutional rights (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Tucker, 21 AD3d 387 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]).

2004In light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Crawford v Washington (541 US —, 124 S Ct 1354 [2004]), we find, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, that the admission into evidence of Rivers’s plea allocution violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Supreme Court held in Crawford that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment bars the use, to establish the truth of the matter stated, of testimonial hearsay by a declarant who does not appear at a trial against the accused in a criminal prosecution

2004In light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Crawford v Washington (541 US —, 124 S Ct 1354 [2004]), we find, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, that the admission into evidence of Rivers’s plea allocution violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Supreme Court held in Crawford that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment bars the use, to establish the truth of the matter stated, of testimonial hearsay by a declarant who does not appear at a trial against the accused in a criminal prosecution

2004With respect to the Family Court order dated August 16, 2001, which, inter alia, denied the mother’s objections to the hearing examiner’s order dated January 8, 2001, great deference is given to the hearing examiner, who was in the best position to hear and evaluate the evidence as well as the credibility of the witnesses (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Rolle] v Murphy, 254 AD2d 285 [1998]; Matter of Tyler v Minott, 206 AD2d 537, 538 [1994]).

2004The father’s failure to pay support as ordered constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation of the support order (see Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]; Matter of Richards v Bailey, 296 AD2d 412 [2002]).

2002Under the circumstances presented herein, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by vacating the resentence, and we remit the matter to Chautauqua County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty, to waive his right to appeal and to plead guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, a class D felony, with a sentence of 2 to 4 years to be served consecutively to the undischarged portion of his earlier sentence, or otherwise to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty (see C

2000Allen v United States, 164 US 492 (1896). .

2000(See, People v Johnson, 224 AD2d 635 , lv denied 88 NY2d 849 [1996]; Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 250 [1984].) It was for the reasons stated above that this court found that under certain limited circumstances the court may, in its sound discretion, de-sequester the jury over the objections of the defense. .

1995These comments did not address any evidence before the jury and improperly suggested that the jurors engage in speculation in their deliberations (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ).

1992None of the objections by defense counsel was accompanied by a motion for a mistrial or a request for curative instructions (People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 ; People v Lewis, 167 AD2d 303, 304 , lv denied 77 NY2d 908 ).

1992None of the objections by defense counsel was accompanied by a motion for a mistrial or a request for curative instructions (People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 ; People v Lewis, 167 AD2d 303, 304 , lv denied 77 NY2d 908 ).

1992However, the prosecutor’s conduct, during trial and on summation, "was improper and prejudicial to defendant” (People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 ) and "violated the prosecutor’s obligation to seek justice, rather than conviction (see Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 7-13)” (59 NY2d, supra, at 280-281).

1989In the absence of such evidence, the determination cannot be sustained (see, Matter of Gonzalez [Ross], supra; Matter of Friedman [Roberts] 121 AD2d 771 ; Matter of Lebrón [Ross] 72 AD2d 886 ) and the matter must be remitted for further proceedings to consider the merits of the county’s objections to the claim.

1989In the absence of such evidence, the determination cannot be sustained (see, Matter of Gonzalez [Ross], supra; Matter of Friedman [Roberts] 121 AD2d 771 ; Matter of Lebrón [Ross] 72 AD2d 886 ) and the matter must be remitted for further proceedings to consider the merits of the county’s objections to the claim.

1988Inflammatory comments and expressions of personal opinion concerning the veracity of witnesses are improper in the summation of either the prosecutor or the defense counsel (People v Mitchell, 114 AD2d 978, 979 , lv denied 67 NY2d 654 ).

1986Of course, it is generally the defendant who seeks such relief, but where, as here, a suppression ruling is a necessary predicate to the admissibility of in-court identifications (see, United States v Wade, 388 US 218 ), the appropriate procedure is to conduct a Wade hearing in advance of trial, notwithstanding the objections of defense counsel (cf. People v Cannon, 97 Mise 2d 762).