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.
14 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2021 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. Buttsgreen2 sentences2020The County Court properly declined the defendant's request to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment since no reasonable view of the evidence supported that defense ( see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Butts , 72 NY2d 746, 750 ; People v Mazarigos , 76 AD3d 533 , 534; People v Pilgrim , 154 AD2d 407, 409 ). 2013The Supreme Court properly declined the defendant’s request to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment since no reasonable view of the evidence supported that defense (see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]; People v Garcia, 66 AD3d 699 , 700- [2009]). | 7 | 8 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2020"Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment" (Penal Law § 40.05; see People v Brown , 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 [1993]). [FN2] Defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial — including the contents of the advertisement, the addition of the 14-year-old female to the scenario and the contradictory statements as to whether the sisters would do things "together or separate" or as a "package deal" — reasonably and sufficiently supports his entitlement to the affirmative defense of entrapment. 2020Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence demonstrated that the confidential informant merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the subject offense, which, standing alone, was insufficient to warrant an entrapment charge ( see People v Brown , 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 ; People v Mazarigos , 76 AD3d at 534). | 6 | 7 |
People v. Skervingreen2 sentences2020Defendant next contends that Supreme Court erred when it declined to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment. [FN1] "To establish entitlement to an entrapment defense jury charge, a defendant must establish that the trial evidence reasonably and sufficiently supports the inference that he or she was actively induced or encouraged to commit the offense by a public servant . . . and that such inducement or encouragement created a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a defendant who was not otherwise disposed to commit it" ( People v Figueroa , 167 AD3d 1073 2010The trial court properly declined the defendant’s request to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment since no reasonable view of the evidence supported that defense (see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]; People v Garcia, 66 AD3d 699 [2009]; People v Skervin, 17 AD3d 771, 771-772 [2005]). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Batteasegreen2 sentences2013Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d 970, 972 [2012], Iv denied 20 NY3d 934 [2012]; People v Pinkney, 90 AD3d 1313, 1317 [2011]; People v Battease, 74 AD3d at 1575-1576). 2013Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d 970, 972 [2012], Iv denied 20 NY3d 934 [2012]; People v Pinkney, 90 AD3d 1313, 1317 [2011]; People v Battease, 74 AD3d at 1575-1576). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pinkneygreen2 sentences2013Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d 970, 972 [2012], Iv denied 20 NY3d 934 [2012]; People v Pinkney, 90 AD3d 1313, 1317 [2011]; People v Battease, 74 AD3d at 1575-1576). 2013Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d 970, 972 [2012], Iv denied 20 NY3d 934 [2012]; People v Pinkney, 90 AD3d 1313, 1317 [2011]; People v Battease, 74 AD3d at 1575-1576). | 2 | 2 |
People v. McRobbiegreen2 sentences2013Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d 970, 972 [2012], Iv denied 20 NY3d 934 [2012]; People v Pinkney, 90 AD3d 1313, 1317 [2011]; People v Battease, 74 AD3d at 1575-1576). 2013Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d 970, 972 [2012], Iv denied 20 NY3d 934 [2012]; People v Pinkney, 90 AD3d 1313, 1317 [2011]; People v Battease, 74 AD3d at 1575-1576). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Smythgreen2 sentences2013The evidence demonstrated that the undercover detective merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the crime of conspiracy in the second degree, which, standing alone, was insufficient to support an entrapment charge (see People v Brown, 82 NY2d 869, 872 [1993]; People v Mazarigos, 76 AD3d 533 , 534 [2010]; People v Smyth, 233 AD2d 746, 747-748 [1996]). 2013The evidence demonstrated that the undercover detective merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the crime of conspiracy in the second degree, which, standing alone, was insufficient to support an entrapment charge (see People v Brown, 82 NY2d 869, 872 [1993]; People v Mazarigos, 76 AD3d 533 , 534 [2010]; People v Smyth, 233 AD2d 746, 747-748 [1996]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Moultriegreen2 sentences2010Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence demonstrated that undercover detectives merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the subject offense, which, standing alone, was insufficient to warrant an entrapment charge (see People v Broum, 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 [1993]; People v Vega, 23 AD3d 504, 505 [2005]; People v Moultrie, 5 AD3d 241, 242 [2004]; People v Delaney, 309 AD2d 968 [2003]). 2009Rather, the evidence demonstrated that an undercover detective merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the offenses, which, standing alone, was insufficient to warrant an entrapment charge (see People v Brown, 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 [1993]; People v Vega, 23 AD3d 504, 505 [2005]; People v Moultrie, 5 AD3d 241, 242 [2004]; People v Delaney, 309 AD2d 968 [2003]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Vegagreen2 sentences2010Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence demonstrated that undercover detectives merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the subject offense, which, standing alone, was insufficient to warrant an entrapment charge (see People v Broum, 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 [1993]; People v Vega, 23 AD3d 504, 505 [2005]; People v Moultrie, 5 AD3d 241, 242 [2004]; People v Delaney, 309 AD2d 968 [2003]). 2009Rather, the evidence demonstrated that an undercover detective merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the offenses, which, standing alone, was insufficient to warrant an entrapment charge (see People v Brown, 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 [1993]; People v Vega, 23 AD3d 504, 505 [2005]; People v Moultrie, 5 AD3d 241, 242 [2004]; People v Delaney, 309 AD2d 968 [2003]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Adamgreen1 sentence2021In this appeal, we reject defendant's contention that the People were judicially estopped from proceeding on a theory of accomplice liability inasmuch as "the People neither argued for nor prevailed upon a contrary position in a prior proceeding" ( People v Adam , 126 AD3d 1169, 1170 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 911 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Romerogreen1 sentence2020Defendant next contends that Supreme Court erred when it declined to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment. [FN1] "To establish entitlement to an entrapment defense jury charge, a defendant must establish that the trial evidence reasonably and sufficiently supports the inference that he or she was actively induced or encouraged to commit the offense by a public servant . . . and that such inducement or encouragement created a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a defendant who was not otherwise disposed to commit it" ( People v Figueroa , 167 AD3d 1073 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Huntgreen1 sentence2018To establish entitlement to an entrapment defense jury charge, a defendant must establish that the trial evidence reasonably and sufficiently supports the inference that he or she was actively "induced or encouraged" to commit the offense "by a public servant, or by a person acting in cooperation with a public servant," and that such inducement or encouragement created "a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a [defendant who was] not otherwise disposed to commit it" (Penal Law § 40.05; see People v Brown , 82 NY2d 869, 870-871 [1993]; People v Butts , 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988] | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whitegreen1 sentence2017Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the subject strangulation, the defendant suffered from a mental infirmity typically manifested by a loss of self-control (see Penal Law §§ 125.25 [1] [a]; 125.20 [2]; People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70, 76-77 [2002]; People v White, 79 NY2d 900, 904 [1992]; People v Walker, 64 NY2d 741, 743 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rochegreen1 sentence2017Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the subject strangulation, the defendant suffered from a mental infirmity typically manifested by a loss of self-control (see Penal Law §§ 125.25 [1] [a]; 125.20 [2]; People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70, 76-77 [2002]; People v White, 79 NY2d 900, 904 [1992]; People v Walker, 64 NY2d 741, 743 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Walkergreen1 sentence2017Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the subject strangulation, the defendant suffered from a mental infirmity typically manifested by a loss of self-control (see Penal Law §§ 125.25 [1] [a]; 125.20 [2]; People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70, 76-77 [2002]; People v White, 79 NY2d 900, 904 [1992]; People v Walker, 64 NY2d 741, 743 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Santosgreen1 sentence2009The trial court properly declined the defendant’s request to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment since no reasonable view of the evidence supported that defense (see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]; People v Santos, 38 AD3d 574, 575 [2007], cert denied 552 US — , 128 S Ct 399 [2007]; People v Skervin, 17 AD3d 771, 771-772 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Contesgreen1 sentence2007Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | 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. Garcia
green
2 sentences2013The Supreme Court properly declined the defendant’s request to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment since no reasonable view of the evidence supported that defense (see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]; People v Garcia, 66 AD3d 699 , 700- [2009]). 2013The Supreme Court properly declined the defendant’s request to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment since no reasonable view of the evidence supported that defense (see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]; People v Garcia, 66 AD3d 699 , 700- [2009]). | 3 | 2010–2013 |
People v. Delaney
green
2 sentences2010Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence demonstrated that undercover detectives merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the subject offense, which, standing alone, was insufficient to warrant an entrapment charge (see People v Broum, 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 [1993]; People v Vega, 23 AD3d 504, 505 [2005]; People v Moultrie, 5 AD3d 241, 242 [2004]; People v Delaney, 309 AD2d 968 [2003]). 2009Rather, the evidence demonstrated that an undercover detective merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the offenses, which, standing alone, was insufficient to warrant an entrapment charge (see People v Brown, 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 [1993]; People v Vega, 23 AD3d 504, 505 [2005]; People v Moultrie, 5 AD3d 241, 242 [2004]; People v Delaney, 309 AD2d 968 [2003]). | 2 | 2009–2010 |
People v. Brewer
green
1 sentence2021He was also convicted, after a separate trial, of murder in the second degree stemming from this incident, but we reversed that conviction and remitted for a new trial on that count of the indictment based on our determination that Supreme Court (Egan, J.) erred in charging the jury with the affirmative defense of renunciation over the objection of defense counsel ( People v Brewer , 118 AD3d 1409 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1082 [2014]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Pilgrim
green
1 sentence2020The County Court properly declined the defendant's request to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment since no reasonable view of the evidence supported that defense ( see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Butts , 72 NY2d 746, 750 ; People v Mazarigos , 76 AD3d 533 , 534; People v Pilgrim , 154 AD2d 407, 409 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hall
green
1 sentence2018To establish entitlement to an entrapment defense jury charge, a defendant must establish that the trial evidence reasonably and sufficiently supports the inference that he or she was actively "induced or encouraged" to commit the offense "by a public servant, or by a person acting in cooperation with a public servant," and that such inducement or encouragement created "a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a [defendant who was] not otherwise disposed to commit it" (Penal Law § 40.05; see People v Brown , 82 NY2d 869, 870-871 [1993]; People v Butts , 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988] | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Diaz
green
1 sentence1998No reasonable view of the evidence would have allowed the jury to conclude that the defendant did not aid in the commission of the homicide (see, People v Diaz, 177 AD2d 500 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.