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.
11 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 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 sentences2019Contrary to the People's contention, defendant was entitled to a justification charge, even though at trial he denied assaulting the subject correction officer, and argued that the People failed to prove that he possessed the pen used to injure the subject correction officer. "[A] defendant's entitlement to a charge on a claimed defense is not defeated solely by reason of its inconsistency with some other defense raised or even with the defendant's outright denial that he was involved in the crime" ( People v Butts , 72 NY2d 746, 748 [1988]). 2017Rather, the People are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the defendant knowingly possessed the weapon and that such possession was not innocent.” The trial court, when determining whether to give a charge on a claimed defense, “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant,” and “[u]pon defendant’s request, the court must instruct the jury on the defense if it is sufficiently supported by the evidence; failure to do so may constitute reversible error” (People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]). | 5 | 10 |
People v. Steelegreen2 sentences2019Rather, "[a] jury may believe portions of both the defense and prosecution evidence . . . and still find . . . that defendant acted justifiably" ( People v Steele , 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970], citing People v Asan , 22 NY2d 526, 530 [1968]; see People v Zona , 14 NY3d 488, 493 [2010]). 1988It is established New York case law that a defendant’s entitlement to a charge on a claimed defense is not defeated solely by reason of its inconsistency with some other defense raised or even with the defendant’s outright denial that he was involved in the crime (see, People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142, 146 ; People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 ; cf., People v Asan, 22 NY2d 526, 532 ; People v Moran, 246 NY 100, 103 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Asangreen2 sentences2019Rather, "[a] jury may believe portions of both the defense and prosecution evidence . . . and still find . . . that defendant acted justifiably" ( People v Steele , 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970], citing People v Asan , 22 NY2d 526, 530 [1968]; see People v Zona , 14 NY3d 488, 493 [2010]). 1988It is established New York case law that a defendant’s entitlement to a charge on a claimed defense is not defeated solely by reason of its inconsistency with some other defense raised or even with the defendant’s outright denial that he was involved in the crime (see, People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142, 146 ; People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 ; cf., People v Asan, 22 NY2d 526, 532 ; People v Moran, 246 NY 100, 103 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Zonagreen1 sentence2019Rather, "[a] jury may believe portions of both the defense and prosecution evidence . . . and still find . . . that defendant acted justifiably" ( People v Steele , 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970], citing People v Asan , 22 NY2d 526, 530 [1968]; see People v Zona , 14 NY3d 488, 493 [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1988We per ceive no reason why this general rule should not also apply to the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, People v Felder, 32 NY2d 747 , affg 39 AD2d 373, 378 ; Mathews v United States, 485 US —, 108 S Ct 883, 885, 886 ; People v Demma, 523 F2d 981; cf., People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849 ; People v Lee, 35 NY2d 826 ). 1 Thus, we reject the rationale of the Appellate Division that defendant’s testimony that he did not make the first three sales "eliminate^] any justification for an entrapment charge” (131 AD2d, at 250). | 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. White
green
1 sentence2001However, the Court of Appeals has also recognized that a “defendant’s repeated claims of innocence necessarily impact[s] upon the sufficiency of the evidence offered to demonstrate that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the homicide” (People v White, 79 NY2d 900, 903 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Moye
green
1 sentence1991When determining whether to give a charge on a claimed defense, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, and must instruct the jury on that defense if it is sufficiently supported by the evidence (People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 751 ; People v Moye, 66 NY2d 887, 889-890 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Moran
green
1 sentence1988It is established New York case law that a defendant’s entitlement to a charge on a claimed defense is not defeated solely by reason of its inconsistency with some other defense raised or even with the defendant’s outright denial that he was involved in the crime (see, People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142, 146 ; People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 ; cf., People v Asan, 22 NY2d 526, 532 ; People v Moran, 246 NY 100, 103 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Lee
green
1 sentence1988We per ceive no reason why this general rule should not also apply to the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, People v Felder, 32 NY2d 747 , affg 39 AD2d 373, 378 ; Mathews v United States, 485 US —, 108 S Ct 883, 885, 886 ; People v Demma, 523 F2d 981; cf., People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849 ; People v Lee, 35 NY2d 826 ). 1 Thus, we reject the rationale of the Appellate Division that defendant’s testimony that he did not make the first three sales "eliminate^] any justification for an entrapment charge” (131 AD2d, at 250). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Felder
green
1 sentence1988We per ceive no reason why this general rule should not also apply to the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, People v Felder, 32 NY2d 747 , affg 39 AD2d 373, 378 ; Mathews v United States, 485 US —, 108 S Ct 883, 885, 886 ; People v Demma, 523 F2d 981; cf., People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849 ; People v Lee, 35 NY2d 826 ). 1 Thus, we reject the rationale of the Appellate Division that defendant’s testimony that he did not make the first three sales "eliminate^] any justification for an entrapment charge” (131 AD2d, at 250). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Perry
green
1 sentence1988We per ceive no reason why this general rule should not also apply to the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, People v Felder, 32 NY2d 747 , affg 39 AD2d 373, 378 ; Mathews v United States, 485 US —, 108 S Ct 883, 885, 886 ; People v Demma, 523 F2d 981; cf., People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849 ; People v Lee, 35 NY2d 826 ). 1 Thus, we reject the rationale of the Appellate Division that defendant’s testimony that he did not make the first three sales "eliminate^] any justification for an entrapment charge” (131 AD2d, at 250). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Padgett
green
1 sentence1988It is established New York case law that a defendant’s entitlement to a charge on a claimed defense is not defeated solely by reason of its inconsistency with some other defense raised or even with the defendant’s outright denial that he was involved in the crime (see, People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142, 146 ; People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 ; cf., People v Asan, 22 NY2d 526, 532 ; People v Moran, 246 NY 100, 103 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Watts
green
1 sentence1988Upon defendant’s request, the court must instruct the jury on the defense if it is sufficiently supported by the evidence; failure to do so may constitute reversible error (see, People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301 ; People v Steele, supra, at 529 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Felder
green
1 sentence1988We per ceive no reason why this general rule should not also apply to the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, People v Felder, 32 NY2d 747 , affg 39 AD2d 373, 378 ; Mathews v United States, 485 US —, 108 S Ct 883, 885, 886 ; People v Demma, 523 F2d 981; cf., People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849 ; People v Lee, 35 NY2d 826 ). 1 Thus, we reject the rationale of the Appellate Division that defendant’s testimony that he did not make the first three sales "eliminate^] any justification for an entrapment charge” (131 AD2d, at 250). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.