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.
19 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2023 4 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. Crimminsgreen2 sentences2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there 2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there | 5 | 7 |
People v. Lunsfordgreen2 sentences2015Although the court gave a limiting instruction that the jury was the sole factfinder and that it was to make its own credibility determinations and to disregard the detective’s statements that no one would believe defendant, we conclude that any probative value of the video recording “ ‘[was] substantially outweighed by the danger that it [would] unfairly prejudice [defendant] or mislead the jury’ ” (Caban, 14 NY3d at 375 , quoting People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777 [1988]; see People v Lunsford, 244 AD2d 507, 507-508 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 927 [1998]). 2015Although the court gave a limiting instruction that the jury was the sole factfinder and that it was to make its own credibility determinations and to disregard the detective’s statements that no one would believe defendant, we conclude that any probative value of the video recording “ ‘[was] substantially outweighed by the danger that it [would] unfairly prejudice [defendant] or mislead the jury’ ” (Caban, 14 NY3d at 375 , quoting People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777 [1988]; see People v Lunsford, 244 AD2d 507, 507-508 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 927 [1998]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Joynergreen2 sentences2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there 2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there | 2 | 3 |
People v. Concepciongreen2 sentences2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there 2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there | 2 | 3 |
People v. Barnergreen2 sentences2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there 2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there | 2 | 3 |
People v. Elygreen2 sentences2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there 2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there | 2 | 3 |
People v. Scarolagreen2 sentences2015Although the court gave a limiting instruction that the jury was the sole factfinder and that it was to make its own credibility determinations and to disregard the detective’s statements that no one would believe defendant, we conclude that any probative value of the video recording “ ‘[was] substantially outweighed by the danger that it [would] unfairly prejudice [defendant] or mislead the jury’ ” (Caban, 14 NY3d at 375 , quoting People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777 [1988]; see People v Lunsford, 244 AD2d 507, 507-508 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 927 [1998]). 2015Although the court gave a limiting instruction that the jury was the sole factfinder and that it was to make its own credibility determinations and to disregard the detective’s statements that no one would believe defendant, we conclude that any probative value of the video recording “ ‘[was] substantially outweighed by the danger that it [would] unfairly prejudice [defendant] or mislead the jury’ ” (Caban, 14 NY3d at 375 , quoting People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777 [1988]; see People v Lunsford, 244 AD2d 507, 507-508 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 927 [1998]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2014Furthermore, the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudicial effect (see People v Rogers, 103 AD3d 1150, 1153 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 946 [2013]). 2014Furthermore, the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudicial effect (see People v Rogers, 103 AD3d 1150, 1153 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 946 [2013]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Smallgreen2 sentences2023Taking into account that the court gave a limiting instruction at the time such evidence was offered ( see People v Small , 12 NY3d 732, 733 [2009]; People v Paul , 202 AD3d at 1211 ) and again during the final charge, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial on this basis. 2023Taking into account that the court gave a limiting instruction at the time such evidence was offered ( see People v Small , 12 NY3d 732, 733 [2009]; People v Paul , 202 AD3d at 1211 ) and again during the final charge, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial on this basis. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Fineoutgreen2 sentences2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there 2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 906 [1997]; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 [1991]), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there | 2 | 2 |
People v. Murraygreen1 sentence2022Further, although the court gave a limiting instruction immediately following the victim's testimony that defendant had been "incarcerated over the years," the court nonetheless later instructed the jury that they could consider the evidence that defendant had previously been incarcerated "on the question of the victim's state of mind." This instruction compounded, rather than alleviated, the court's prior error because, as concluded above, the victim's state of mind was irrelevant to the elements of the charge against defendant under the circumstances of this case ( see generally People v Mur | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gachelingreen1 sentence2022The court's instruction left the jurors to speculate on the relevance of defendant's prior incarceration and invited them to use that evidence as a reason to credit the victim's testimony ( see People v Shaw , 160 AD2d 393, 394 [1st Dept 1990]; see generally People v Gachelin , 237 AD2d 300, 301 [2d Dept 1997]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shawgreen1 sentence2022The court's instruction left the jurors to speculate on the relevance of defendant's prior incarceration and invited them to use that evidence as a reason to credit the victim's testimony ( see People v Shaw , 160 AD2d 393, 394 [1st Dept 1990]; see generally People v Gachelin , 237 AD2d 300, 301 [2d Dept 1997]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Maygreen1 sentence2016Although the court erred in permitting the People to play the audio recording because they failed to lay a proper foundation for it (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 ; People v Joyner, 240 AD2d 282, 286-287 , lv denied 90 NY2d 906 ; People v Concepcion, 175 AD2d 324, 327 , lv denied 78 NY2d 1010 ), the court gave a limiting instruction that minimized any prejudice (see generally People v Barner, 30 AD3d 1091, 1092 , lv denied 7 NY3d 809 ), and we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that the jur | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kellogreen1 sentence2003Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting that testimony, we conclude that any error is harmless (see People v Kello, 96 NY2d 740, 744 [2001]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; see also People v Hill, 300 AD2d 1125, 1126 [2002] , lv denied 99 NY2d 615 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen1 sentence2003Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting that testimony, we conclude that any error is harmless (see People v Kello, 96 NY2d 740, 744 [2001]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; see also People v Hill, 300 AD2d 1125, 1126 [2002] , lv denied 99 NY2d 615 [2003]). | 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. Caban
green
2 sentences2015Although the court gave a limiting instruction that the jury was the sole factfinder and that it was to make its own credibility determinations and to disregard the detective’s statements that no one would believe defendant, we conclude that any probative value of the video recording “ ‘[was] substantially outweighed by the danger that it [would] unfairly prejudice [defendant] or mislead the jury’ ” (Caban, 14 NY3d at 375 , quoting People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777 [1988]; see People v Lunsford, 244 AD2d 507, 507-508 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 927 [1998]). 2015Although the court gave a limiting instruction that the jury was the sole factfinder and that it was to make its own credibility determinations and to disregard the detective’s statements that no one would believe defendant, we conclude that any probative value of the video recording “ ‘[was] substantially outweighed by the danger that it [would] unfairly prejudice [defendant] or mislead the jury’ ” (Caban, 14 NY3d at 375 , quoting People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777 [1988]; see People v Lunsford, 244 AD2d 507, 507-508 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 927 [1998]). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Paul
green
2 sentences2023Taking into account that the court gave a limiting instruction at the time such evidence was offered ( see People v Small , 12 NY3d 732, 733 [2009]; People v Paul , 202 AD3d at 1211 ) and again during the final charge, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial on this basis. 2023Taking into account that the court gave a limiting instruction at the time such evidence was offered ( see People v Small , 12 NY3d 732, 733 [2009]; People v Paul , 202 AD3d at 1211 ) and again during the final charge, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial on this basis. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Abdul- Aleem
green
1 sentence2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence testimony that he gave false pedigree information to the police upon his arrest for the subject offense, as such testimony is evidence of his consciousness of guilt, and the court gave a limiting instruction regarding the probative value of the evidence ( see People v Abdul-Aleem , 133 AD3d 867, 868 ; People v Miller , 123 AD2d 721 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Miller
neutral
1 sentence2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence testimony that he gave false pedigree information to the police upon his arrest for the subject offense, as such testimony is evidence of his consciousness of guilt, and the court gave a limiting instruction regarding the probative value of the evidence ( see People v Abdul-Aleem , 133 AD3d 867, 868 ; People v Miller , 123 AD2d 721 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Hollander
neutral
1 sentence2022Further, although the court gave a limiting instruction immediately following the victim's testimony that defendant had been "incarcerated over the years," the court nonetheless later instructed the jury that they could consider the evidence that defendant had previously been incarcerated "on the question of the victim's state of mind." This instruction compounded, rather than alleviated, the court's prior error because, as concluded above, the victim's state of mind was irrelevant to the elements of the charge against defendant under the circumstances of this case ( see generally People v Mur | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Womack
green
1 sentence2018In addition, at the conclusion of the victim's testimony the court gave a limiting instruction that the evidence was to be considered only for limited purposes, and the jury instruction also reminded the jury that it could not convict the defendant simply because he had committed similar acts in the past ( see People v Womack, 143 AD3d 1171, 1174 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Medina
green
1 sentence2018Although the court's charge improperly referenced the defendant's prior convictions, the instruction, in its entirety, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see People v Medina, 18 NY3d 98, 104 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Maddox
green
1 sentence2003In addition, the court gave a limiting instruction, thereby minimizing any prejudice to defendant (see generally People v Maddox, 272 AD2d 884 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 867 [2000]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Demetsenare
green
1 sentence1999Defendants’ convictions for a City-wide Donnelly Act violation and the individual violations directed against specific customers and competitors are not multiplicitous and consecu tive sentences thereon were appropriate (see, People Demetsenare, 243 AD2d 777, 779-780 , lv denied 91 NY2d 833 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Mirenda
green
1 sentence1999It was also a provident exercise of discretion to deny a mistrial once certain codefendants pleaded guilty during trial, since the People did not try to gain a tactical advantage, the court gave a limiting instruction, and the jurors asserted that they had not read or heard anything about what had happened to the codefendants (see, People v Mirenda, 23 NY2d 439, 450 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Ferrer
green
1 sentence1998In any event, the court gave a limiting instruction and the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s concededly correct charge concerning the defense (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294 ; People v Ferrer, 245 AD2d 569 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Berg
green
1 sentence1998In any event, the court gave a limiting instruction and the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s concededly correct charge concerning the defense (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294 ; People v Ferrer, 245 AD2d 569 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1994The evidence of the uncharged narcotics sale was not relevant to the proof of any element of the sale with which appellant was charged; it tended only to show appellant’s criminal propensity (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 54 ; People v Jackson, 174 AD2d 552, 554 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Hudy
red
1 sentence1994The evidence of the uncharged narcotics sale was not relevant to the proof of any element of the sale with which appellant was charged; it tended only to show appellant’s criminal propensity (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 54 ; People v Jackson, 174 AD2d 552, 554 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Yazum green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. Rivera green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. Rodriquez green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.