overruling defense in New York

1936Owens v. Owens ( 64 App. Div. 212 ) and Matter of Runcie ( 36 Misc.

1933Owens v. Owens ( 64 App. Div. 212 ) and Matter of Runcie ( 36 Misc.

1936Owens v. Owens ( 64 App. Div. 212 ) and Matter of Runcie ( 36 Misc.

1933Owens v. Owens ( 64 App. Div. 212 ) and Matter of Runcie ( 36 Misc.

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894(Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. 233 ; United States v. Prescott, 3 How. [U. S.] 578; Boyden v. United States, 13 Wall. 21 ; Board of Education of Pine Island v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 ; District Township of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Board of Trustees of Township No. 16, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. Board of Commissioners of Martin County, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners of Hennepen County v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ; Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State ex rel.

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894(Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. 233 ; United States v. Prescott, 3 How. [U. S.] 578; Boyden v. United States, 13 Wall. 21 ; Board of Education of Pine Island v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 ; District Township of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Board of Trustees of Township No. 16, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. Board of Commissioners of Martin County, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners of Hennepen County v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ; Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State ex rel.

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894(Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. 233 ; United States v. Prescott, 3 How. [U. S.] 578; Boyden v. United States, 13 Wall. 21 ; Board of Education of Pine Island v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 ; District Township of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Board of Trustees of Township No. 16, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. Board of Commissioners of Martin County, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners of Hennepen County v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ; Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State ex rel.

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894(Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. 233 ; United States v. Prescott, 3 How. [U. S.] 578; Boyden v. United States, 13 Wall. 21 ; Board of Education of Pine Island v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 ; District Township of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Board of Trustees of Township No. 16, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. Board of Commissioners of Martin County, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners of Hennepen County v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ; Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State ex rel.

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894(Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. 233 ; United States v. Prescott, 3 How. [U. S.] 578; Boyden v. United States, 13 Wall. 21 ; Board of Education of Pine Island v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 ; District Township of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Board of Trustees of Township No. 16, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. Board of Commissioners of Martin County, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners of Hennepen County v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ; Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State ex rel.

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894(Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. 233 ; United States v. Prescott, 3 How. [U. S.] 578; Boyden v. United States, 13 Wall. 21 ; Board of Education of Pine Island v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 ; District Township of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Board of Trustees of Township No. 16, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. Board of Commissioners of Martin County, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners of Hennepen County v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ; Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State ex rel.

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894(Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. 233 ; United States v. Prescott, 3 How. [U. S.] 578; Boyden v. United States, 13 Wall. 21 ; Board of Education of Pine Island v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 ; District Township of Taylor v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Board of Trustees of Township No. 16, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. Board of Commissioners of Martin County, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners of Hennepen County v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ; Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State ex rel.

1998The prejudice to the defendant was compounded, and the prosecutor’s misconduct was not only condoned in the eyes of the jury, but perhaps also encouraged, by the court’s improper overruling of defense counsel’s objections to blatantly improper remarks and, at one point, berating the defendant’s attorney for continually interrupting the prosecutor’s closing, and telling him to sit down (see, People v De Jesus, 42 NY2d 519 ; People v Kent, 125 AD2d 590 ).

1998The prejudice to the defendant was compounded, and the prosecutor’s misconduct was not only condoned in the eyes of the jury, but perhaps also encouraged, by the court’s improper overruling of defense counsel’s objections to blatantly improper remarks and, at one point, berating the defendant’s attorney for continually interrupting the prosecutor’s closing, and telling him to sit down (see, People v De Jesus, 42 NY2d 519 ; People v Kent, 125 AD2d 590 ).

1998Since the evidence in this one-witness identification case was not overwhelming, a new trial is required (see, People v Bailey, supra).

1994Defendant’s testimony that he "never put a knife to anyone’s throat”, made in response to the prosecutor’s question directed solely at the issue of his use of a knife herein, opened the door to a discretionary modification of the trial court’s Sandoval ruling to allow cross-examination of defendant regarding the use of a knife on two prior occasions, as well as the dates and locations of those prior incidents, while precluding mention of the fact that those two incidents involved charges of sexual assaults (People v Laguer, 183 AD2d 485 , lv denied 80 NY2d 905 ).

1994The trial court’s overruling of defense counsel’s objection to that witness offering a medical opinion, on the ground that the doctor had not been "certified” as an expert, implicitly indicated the court’s discretionary acceptance of that medical opinion as "expert testimony” in the applicable field (see, DeLong v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 ).

1992As put so well by Judge Sears in People v Johnson (supra, at 187-188 ): "The vice of the statements and questions of the District Attorney lies not primarily in the incorrectness of the statement that an appeal to the Court of Appeals is compulsory but in the suggestion that the jury’s verdict, if against the defendant, cannot be seriously harmful to him because of the opportunities for review.

1992However, the trial court’s overruling of defense counsel’s two objections to this improper line of comment had the effect of giving such comment the court’s imprimatur, thereby greatly enhancing the possibility of prejudice to defendant (see, e.g., People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 111 ).

1986(See, People v Defense, 51 AD2d 924 ; People v Range, 49 AD2d 832 ; People v Clemons, 48 AD2d 802 , wherein this court has previously condemned prosecutorial attempts to inject sympathy for others into criminal proceedings.) Finally, the District Attorney wrongfully vouched for the strength of the People’s case by asserting that the prosecution had more than met its burden of proof.

1986(See, People v Defense, 51 AD2d 924 ; People v Range, 49 AD2d 832 ; People v Clemons, 48 AD2d 802 , wherein this court has previously condemned prosecutorial attempts to inject sympathy for others into criminal proceedings.) Finally, the District Attorney wrongfully vouched for the strength of the People’s case by asserting that the prosecution had more than met its burden of proof.

1986(See, People v Defense, 51 AD2d 924 ; People v Range, 49 AD2d 832 ; People v Clemons, 48 AD2d 802 , wherein this court has previously condemned prosecutorial attempts to inject sympathy for others into criminal proceedings.) Finally, the District Attorney wrongfully vouched for the strength of the People’s case by asserting that the prosecution had more than met its burden of proof.

1939Co., 214 N. Y. 352 .) Despite the criticism of the ruling in the O’Connell case expressed by a learned text-book writer (See Seelman, Law of Libel & Slander, §§ 42 et seq.), and notwithstanding his assertion that the Court of Appeals has not since followed it (§ 48), this court must await the overruling of that doctrine by the Court of Appeals itself before it may be free to ignore it.

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1894Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Denio, 233 ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. 578 ; Boyden v. U. S., 13 Wall. 21 ; Board v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 427 , 46 N. W. 914 ; Taylor Tp. v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 550 ; Thompson v. Trustees, 30 Ill. 99 ; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125 ; Commissioners v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 ( Gil. 182 ); Commissioners v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231 ; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86 ; Rock v. Stinger, 36 Ind. 346 ; Union Tp. v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 9 ; Hancock v. Hazzard, 12 Cush. 112 ; Redwood Co. v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45 , 8 N. W. 907 ; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162 , 7 Pac. 650 ; State v. Harper, 6 Ohio St. 607 ; I

1888Ferris v. People, 48 Barb. 17 , 35 N. Y. 125 , etc.,—we think there is no ground " to reverse the j udgment for any error in the overruling of this challenge.

1888Ferris v. People, 48 Barb. 17 , 35 N. Y. 125 , etc.,—we think there is no ground " to reverse the j udgment for any error in the overruling of this challenge.