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 3 courts 2006–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Policano v. Herbertgreen2 sentences2008He asserts that the Register rule can be summarized simply as a holding that “unless there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the defendant might have acted unintentionally” (Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d at 601), he or she could be convicted of depraved indifference murder. 2008He asserts that the Register rule can be summarized simply as a holding that “unless there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the defendant might have acted unintentionally” (Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d at 601), he or she could be convicted of depraved indifference murder. | 3 | 4 |
People v. Feingoldgreen2 sentences2013In any event, whether we analyze this case under the Register standard or under the current standard set forth in People v Feingold ( 7 NY3d 288, 296 [2006]), we reach the same result. 2013In any event, whether we analyze this case under the Register standard or under the current standard set forth in People v Feingold ( 7 NY3d 288, 296 [2006]), we reach the same result. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Danielsongreen2 sentences2011However, as recently as three months ago, three judges of the Court of Appeals rejected an indistinguishable preservation argument (People v Prindle, 16 NY3d 768, 773 [2011, Pigott, J., dissenting]). * Consequently, the Register standard, which was the basis of the jury charge in this case, informs our sufficiency analysis and conclusion that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). 2011However, as recently as three months ago, three judges of the Court of Appeals rejected an indistinguishable preservation argument (People v Prindle, 16 NY3d 768, 773 [2011, Pigott, J., dissenting]). * Consequently, the Register standard, which was the basis of the jury charge in this case, informs our sufficiency analysis and conclusion that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Registerred2 sentences2012Because the jury, the Appellate Division said, “was instructed in light of then-applicable law,” specifically People v Register ( 60 NY2d 270 [1983]), his argument must be evaluated under “the Register standard” (id.). 2012Because the jury, the Appellate Division said, “was instructed in light of then-applicable law,” specifically People v Register ( 60 NY2d 270 [1983]), his argument must be evaluated under “the Register standard” (id.). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Jean-Baptistegreen2 sentences2011Defendant argues that, even though he did not object to the charge as given, his trial order of dismissal motion adequately anticipated and preserved his argument that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient under Feingold (see People v Jean-Baptiste, 11 NY3d 539, 542 [2008]). 2011Defendant argues that, even though he did not object to the charge as given, his trial order of dismissal motion adequately anticipated and preserved his argument that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient under Feingold (see People v Jean-Baptiste, 11 NY3d 539, 542 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Prindlegreen2 sentences2011However, as recently as three months ago, three judges of the Court of Appeals rejected an indistinguishable preservation argument (People v Prindle, 16 NY3d 768, 773 [2011, Pigott, J., dissenting]). * Consequently, the Register standard, which was the basis of the jury charge in this case, informs our sufficiency analysis and conclusion that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). 2011However, as recently as three months ago, three judges of the Court of Appeals rejected an indistinguishable preservation argument (People v Prindle, 16 NY3d 768, 773 [2011, Pigott, J., dissenting]). * Consequently, the Register standard, which was the basis of the jury charge in this case, informs our sufficiency analysis and conclusion that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Florestalgreen1 sentence2010As to cases that became final at some point between those two dates, the Third Department has held that the new, post -Register standard is applicable to those that were not yet finally decided in 2004, when the Court of Appeals issued the decision in People v Payne (People v Baptiste, 51 AD3d 184, 185 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008], accord People v Strawbridge, 76 AD3d 115 [3d Dept 2010]; see also People v Florestal, 53 AD3d 164, 169 [1st Dept 2008] [Feingold standard applies to case tried in 2006, after Suarez decision]; People v Epps, 38 AD3d 916 [2d Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 843 [ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Baptistegreen1 sentence2010As to cases that became final at some point between those two dates, the Third Department has held that the new, post -Register standard is applicable to those that were not yet finally decided in 2004, when the Court of Appeals issued the decision in People v Payne (People v Baptiste, 51 AD3d 184, 185 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008], accord People v Strawbridge, 76 AD3d 115 [3d Dept 2010]; see also People v Florestal, 53 AD3d 164, 169 [1st Dept 2008] [Feingold standard applies to case tried in 2006, after Suarez decision]; People v Epps, 38 AD3d 916 [2d Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 843 [ | 1 | 1 |
Gordon v. Ostergreen2 sentences2008Thus, the court’s evaluation of the sufficiency of proof according to the Register standard, which represented the prevailing law at the time defendant was convicted (see People v Woods, 36 AD3d 525, 526 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007]), went unchallenged, and its failure to apply a mens rea standard, as now urged, is unpreserved for review (see id., citing Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995], supra-, see also People v Orcutt, 49 AD3d 1082, 1085 [2008]; People v Zephirin, 47 AD3d 649 [2008]), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. 2008Thus, the court’s evaluation of the sufficiency of proof according to the Register standard, which represented the prevailing law at the time defendant was convicted (see People v Woods, 36 AD3d 525, 526 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007]), went unchallenged, and its failure to apply a mens rea standard, as now urged, is unpreserved for review (see id., citing Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995], supra-, see also People v Orcutt, 49 AD3d 1082, 1085 [2008]; People v Zephirin, 47 AD3d 649 [2008]), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2008Although there was no jury to be instructed, the clear understanding of the parties that recklessness was the only mental state required for these crimes renders this case indistinguishable from a jury trial in which the jury is charged, without objection, under an incorrect or subsequently invalidated standard (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Johnson, 43 AD3d 288, 291-292 [2007], revd on other grounds 10 NY3d 875 [2008]). 2008Although there was no jury to be instructed, the clear understanding of the parties that recklessness was the only mental state required for these crimes renders this case indistinguishable from a jury trial in which the jury is charged, without objection, under an incorrect or subsequently invalidated standard (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Johnson, 43 AD3d 288, 291-292 [2007], revd on other grounds 10 NY3d 875 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Orcuttgreen2 sentences2008Thus, the court’s evaluation of the sufficiency of proof according to the Register standard, which represented the prevailing law at the time defendant was convicted (see People v Woods, 36 AD3d 525, 526 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007]), went unchallenged, and its failure to apply a mens rea standard, as now urged, is unpreserved for review (see id., citing Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995], supra-, see also People v Orcutt, 49 AD3d 1082, 1085 [2008]; People v Zephirin, 47 AD3d 649 [2008]), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. 2008Thus, the court’s evaluation of the sufficiency of proof according to the Register standard, which represented the prevailing law at the time defendant was convicted (see People v Woods, 36 AD3d 525, 526 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007]), went unchallenged, and its failure to apply a mens rea standard, as now urged, is unpreserved for review (see id., citing Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995], supra-, see also People v Orcutt, 49 AD3d 1082, 1085 [2008]; People v Zephirin, 47 AD3d 649 [2008]), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. | 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. Hafeez
green
1 sentence2018The Court of Appeals in People v Hafeez was still relying on the old People v Register standard ( see People v Hafeez , 100 NY2d at 259 ), and it was not until People v Payne that the Court of Appeals first held that, absent unusual circumstances, "a one-on-one shooting or knifing (or similar killing) can almost never qualify as depraved indifference murder" ( People v Payne , 3 NY3d at 272 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Payne
green
1 sentence2018The Court of Appeals in People v Hafeez was still relying on the old People v Register standard ( see People v Hafeez , 100 NY2d at 259 ), and it was not until People v Payne that the Court of Appeals first held that, absent unusual circumstances, "a one-on-one shooting or knifing (or similar killing) can almost never qualify as depraved indifference murder" ( People v Payne , 3 NY3d at 272 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Valencia
green
2 sentences2011Further, the Court of Appeals’ holding in People v Valencia ( 14 NY3d 927 [2010]) discussed, supra, which is factually indistinguishable from Wells , indicates that Wells should no longer be followed. 2011Further, the Court of Appeals’ holding in People v Valencia ( 14 NY3d 927 [2010]) discussed, supra, which is factually indistinguishable from Wells , indicates that Wells should no longer be followed. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Epps
green
1 sentence2010As to cases that became final at some point between those two dates, the Third Department has held that the new, post -Register standard is applicable to those that were not yet finally decided in 2004, when the Court of Appeals issued the decision in People v Payne (People v Baptiste, 51 AD3d 184, 185 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008], accord People v Strawbridge, 76 AD3d 115 [3d Dept 2010]; see also People v Florestal, 53 AD3d 164, 169 [1st Dept 2008] [Feingold standard applies to case tried in 2006, after Suarez decision]; People v Epps, 38 AD3d 916 [2d Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 843 [ | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2008Although there was no jury to be instructed, the clear understanding of the parties that recklessness was the only mental state required for these crimes renders this case indistinguishable from a jury trial in which the jury is charged, without objection, under an incorrect or subsequently invalidated standard (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Johnson, 43 AD3d 288, 291-292 [2007], revd on other grounds 10 NY3d 875 [2008]). 2008Although there was no jury to be instructed, the clear understanding of the parties that recklessness was the only mental state required for these crimes renders this case indistinguishable from a jury trial in which the jury is charged, without objection, under an incorrect or subsequently invalidated standard (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Johnson, 43 AD3d 288, 291-292 [2007], revd on other grounds 10 NY3d 875 [2008]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Zephirin
green
2 sentences2008Thus, the court’s evaluation of the sufficiency of proof according to the Register standard, which represented the prevailing law at the time defendant was convicted (see People v Woods, 36 AD3d 525, 526 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007]), went unchallenged, and its failure to apply a mens rea standard, as now urged, is unpreserved for review (see id., citing Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995], supra-, see also People v Orcutt, 49 AD3d 1082, 1085 [2008]; People v Zephirin, 47 AD3d 649 [2008]), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. 2008Thus, the court’s evaluation of the sufficiency of proof according to the Register standard, which represented the prevailing law at the time defendant was convicted (see People v Woods, 36 AD3d 525, 526 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007]), went unchallenged, and its failure to apply a mens rea standard, as now urged, is unpreserved for review (see id., citing Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995], supra-, see also People v Orcutt, 49 AD3d 1082, 1085 [2008]; People v Zephirin, 47 AD3d 649 [2008]), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Rothschild v. City of Fort Lauderdale
red
1 sentence2008The law in effect at the time defendant was convicted is delineated by People v Register ( 60 NY2d 270 [1983], cert denied 466 US 953 [1984]), and we hold that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment under the Register standard, the verdict is consistent with the weight of the evidence, and the trial court properly declined to entertain the defense of intoxication to negate the culpable mental state of depraved indifference or to accept expert testimony concerning defendant’s chronic alcoholism. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Gray
green
2 sentences2008Thus, the court’s evaluation of the sufficiency of proof according to the Register standard, which represented the prevailing law at the time defendant was convicted (see People v Woods, 36 AD3d 525, 526 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007]), went unchallenged, and its failure to apply a mens rea standard, as now urged, is unpreserved for review (see id., citing Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995], supra-, see also People v Orcutt, 49 AD3d 1082, 1085 [2008]; People v Zephirin, 47 AD3d 649 [2008]), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. 2008Thus, the court’s evaluation of the sufficiency of proof according to the Register standard, which represented the prevailing law at the time defendant was convicted (see People v Woods, 36 AD3d 525, 526 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007]), went unchallenged, and its failure to apply a mens rea standard, as now urged, is unpreserved for review (see id., citing Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995], supra-, see also People v Orcutt, 49 AD3d 1082, 1085 [2008]; People v Zephirin, 47 AD3d 649 [2008]), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence2006As we expressed this concept in Sanchez , where the defendant’s actions created “a transcendent risk” of causing death, “the level of manifested depravity needed to establish [depraved indifference murder]” was “readily” met (Sanchez, 98 NY2d at 378 ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.