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.
12 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1993–2023 9 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. Beasleygreen2 sentences2009Under these circumstances, the trial court committed error in allowing the People to cross-examine the defendant about his failure to pay taxes without conducting a pre-trial Sandoval hearing (see People v Marrow, 301 AD2d at 675 [error in permitting questioning a welfare-recipient defendant on failure to report income to Department of Social Services, without prior Sandoval hearing]; People v Beasley, 184 AD2d 1003, 1003-1004 [1992] [error in permitting cross-examination of defendant about prior uncharged bad acts]). 2009Moreover, the court’s failure to conduct a proper pretrial inquiry may have affected defendant’s decision to testify at trial (see People v Beasley, 184 AD2d at 1003-1004 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Marrowgreen1 sentence2009Under these circumstances, the trial court committed error in allowing the People to cross-examine the defendant about his failure to pay taxes without conducting a pre-trial Sandoval hearing (see People v Marrow, 301 AD2d at 675 [error in permitting questioning a welfare-recipient defendant on failure to report income to Department of Social Services, without prior Sandoval hearing]; People v Beasley, 184 AD2d 1003, 1003-1004 [1992] [error in permitting cross-examination of defendant about prior uncharged bad acts]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bergergreen1 sentence1993Because we conclude that subsequent proceedings held on the record in defendant’s presence constituted a de novo Sandoval hearing, reversal is not required (see, People v Smith, 186 AD2d 976 ; see also, People v Berger, 188 AD2d 1073 ; cf., People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 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. Sandoval
green
2 sentences2023On the People's consent, the court orders a pre-trial Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]). 2023On the People's consent, the court orders a pre-trial Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]). | 11 | 1993–2023 |
People v. Dokes
green
1 sentence1993Memorandum: We reject the contention that defendant’s absence during a pre-trial Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 ) warrants reversal (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Eady
green
1 sentence1993Because we conclude that subsequent proceedings held on the record in defendant’s presence constituted a de novo Sandoval hearing, reversal is not required (see, People v Smith, 186 AD2d 976 ; see also, People v Berger, 188 AD2d 1073 ; cf., People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence1993Because we conclude that subsequent proceedings held on the record in defendant’s presence constituted a de novo Sandoval hearing, reversal is not required (see, People v Smith, 186 AD2d 976 ; see also, People v Berger, 188 AD2d 1073 ; cf., People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Jabaut
neutral
1 sentence1993Because we conclude that subsequent proceedings held on the record in defendant’s presence constituted a de novo Sandoval hearing, reversal is not required (see, People v Smith, 186 AD2d 976 ; see also, People v Berger, 188 AD2d 1073 ; cf., People v Dean, 188 AD2d 1082 ; People v Eady, 185 AD2d 678 , lv denied 80 NY2d 929 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.