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.
13 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2022 2 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. Callahangreen2 sentences2022Certainly, the disclosure of defendant's prior conviction for a sex offense against a six-year-old child, a crime with elements nearly identical to the present case, was highly prejudicial [*4]to defendant since it could lead a jury to believe that defendant had a propensity for the crime ( see People v DeCarr , 130 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1008 [2015]; see generally People v Callahan , 186 AD3d 943, 946 [2020]). 2022Certainly, the disclosure of defendant's prior conviction for a sex offense against a six-year-old child, a crime with elements nearly identical to the present case, was highly prejudicial [*4]to defendant since it could lead a jury to believe that defendant had a propensity for the crime ( see People v DeCarr , 130 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1008 [2015]; see generally People v Callahan , 186 AD3d 943, 946 [2020]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. DeCarrgreen2 sentences2022Certainly, the disclosure of defendant's prior conviction for a sex offense against a six-year-old child, a crime with elements nearly identical to the present case, was highly prejudicial [*4]to defendant since it could lead a jury to believe that defendant had a propensity for the crime ( see People v DeCarr , 130 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1008 [2015]; see generally People v Callahan , 186 AD3d 943, 946 [2020]). 2022Certainly, the disclosure of defendant's prior conviction for a sex offense against a six-year-old child, a crime with elements nearly identical to the present case, was highly prejudicial [*4]to defendant since it could lead a jury to believe that defendant had a propensity for the crime ( see People v DeCarr , 130 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1008 [2015]; see generally People v Callahan , 186 AD3d 943, 946 [2020]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2014The jury is presumed to have followed this instruction, which we find sufficient to cure any resulting prejudice (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Alvarez, 38 AD3d 930, 932 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 981 [2007]). 2014The jury is presumed to have followed this instruction, which we find sufficient to cure any resulting prejudice (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Alvarez, 38 AD3d 930, 932 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 981 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2014The jury is presumed to have followed this instruction, which we find sufficient to cure any resulting prejudice (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Alvarez, 38 AD3d 930, 932 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 981 [2007]). 2014The jury is presumed to have followed this instruction, which we find sufficient to cure any resulting prejudice (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Alvarez, 38 AD3d 930, 932 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 981 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bostongreen2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Rosariogreen2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2008Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction with respect to the evidence of defendant’s prior acts of domestic violence during the testimony (see People v Wright, 5 AD3d 873, 876 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 651 [2004]; People v Williams, 241 AD2d 911 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 837 [1997]), and we note in any event that the court properly gave the jury a limiting instruction in its jury charge (cf. Greene, 306 AD2d at 642-643 ). 2007While the court should have provided the jury a limiting instruction (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 506 [2002]), that error was waived by defendant’s failure to request such an instruction or object to the court’s final charge (see People v Wright, 5 AD3d 873, 876-877 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 651 [2004]; People v Mendez, 304 AD2d 481, 482 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 584 [2003]). | 2 | 2 |
People of the State of New York v. Riveragreen1 sentence2008The court did not give the jury a limiting instruction, however, and that failure was serious and prejudicial error (see People v Perez, 9 AD3d 376 [2004]; People v Roll, 1 AD3d 617 [2003]; cf. People v Rivera, 96 NY2d 749, 751 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bleakleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Knightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Manegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bartongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Perez v. Metropolitan Museum of Artgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wardgreen | 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. Crimmins
green
2 sentences2019Although the court erred in failing to give the jury a limiting instruction that the victim's mother's testimony recounting her son's description of her assailant was not admitted for the truth, the error was harmless ( see People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). 1992In any event, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ). | 2 | 1992–2019 |
People v. Hepburn
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Livingston
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Sackel
green
2 sentences2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, 2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Nunez-Ramos
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, 2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Hill
green
2 sentences2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, 2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Scott
green
2 sentences2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, 2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Cotterell
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Molina
neutral
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Milhouse
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Walters
green
2 sentences2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, 2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, 2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, 2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Washington
green
2 sentences2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, 2013Furthermore, during his opening and closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper arguments regarding the defendant’s criminal propensity (see People v Scott, 217 AD2d 564 [1995]; People v Hill, 193 AD2d 619 [1993]), expressing his belief that the defendant was lying and had committed perjury (see People v Washington, 278 AD2d 517 [2000]; People v Walters, 251 AD2d 433 [1998]), denigrating the defense (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 595 [1993]; People v Simms, 130 AD2d 525 [1987]), and appealing to the jury’s fears and sympathy (see People v Robinson, | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Newman
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Flynn
green
2 sentences2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 2013Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury the requisite preliminary instructions found in CPL 270.40 (see People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Nunez-Ramos, 160 AD2d 1029 [1990]; People v Hepburn, 52 AD2d 958 [1976]), committed numerous errors and omissions in its instructions regarding the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt standard (see People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126 [1978]; People v Johnson, 11 AD3d 224 [2004]; People v Cotterell, 7 AD3d 807 [2004]; People v Rosario, 300 AD2d 512, 513 [2002]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In the Matter of Newsday, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction with respect to the evidence of defendant’s prior acts of domestic violence during the testimony (see People v Wright, 5 AD3d 873, 876 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 651 [2004]; People v Williams, 241 AD2d 911 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 837 [1997]), and we note in any event that the court properly gave the jury a limiting instruction in its jury charge (cf. Greene, 306 AD2d at 642-643 ). 2007While the court should have provided the jury a limiting instruction (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 506 [2002]), that error was waived by defendant’s failure to request such an instruction or object to the court’s final charge (see People v Wright, 5 AD3d 873, 876-877 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 651 [2004]; People v Mendez, 304 AD2d 481, 482 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 584 [2003]). | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| People v. Perez green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Greene
green
1 sentence2008Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction with respect to the evidence of defendant’s prior acts of domestic violence during the testimony (see People v Wright, 5 AD3d 873, 876 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 651 [2004]; People v Williams, 241 AD2d 911 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 837 [1997]), and we note in any event that the court properly gave the jury a limiting instruction in its jury charge (cf. Greene, 306 AD2d at 642-643 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Spencer green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| People v. Hamilton green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.