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.
8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 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. O'Ramagreen2 sentences2024We agree with defendant that the record fails to reflect that the court provided defense counsel with meaningful notice of the substantive jury note ( see CPL 310.30; People v O'Rama , 78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]). 2017We add that defendant’s reliance on CPL 310.30 is misplaced, inasmuch as the instructions before the recess to which defendant objects were not in response to a jury note or inquiry (see CPL 310.10 [2]; compare People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270, 276-277 [1991]; People v Morrison, 148 AD3d 1707, 1708 [2017]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Vazquezgreen1 sentence2017Defendant raises no specific criticisms regarding the instruction beyond a general claim that it was improperly coercive, which we reject, having previously concluded that the charge given “ ‘was balanced and neutral in tone, and . . . did not urge any dissenting jurors to abandon their convictions and acquiesce in the opinion of the other jurors, attempt to coerce or compel the jurors to reach a particular verdict, or shame the jurors into reaching a verdict’ ” (People v Anderson, 149 AD3d at 1415, quoting People v Cole *1458 man, 64 AD3d 787, 787 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 835 [2009]; see Peo | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morrisongreen1 sentence2017We add that defendant’s reliance on CPL 310.30 is misplaced, inasmuch as the instructions before the recess to which defendant objects were not in response to a jury note or inquiry (see CPL 310.10 [2]; compare People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270, 276-277 [1991]; People v Morrison, 148 AD3d 1707, 1708 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andersongreen1 sentence2017Defendant raises no specific criticisms regarding the instruction beyond a general claim that it was improperly coercive, which we reject, having previously concluded that the charge given “ ‘was balanced and neutral in tone, and . . . did not urge any dissenting jurors to abandon their convictions and acquiesce in the opinion of the other jurors, attempt to coerce or compel the jurors to reach a particular verdict, or shame the jurors into reaching a verdict’ ” (People v Anderson, 149 AD3d at 1415, quoting People v Cole *1458 man, 64 AD3d 787, 787 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 835 [2009]; see Peo | 1 | 1 |
People v. Colemangreen1 sentence2017Defendant raises no specific criticisms regarding the instruction beyond a general claim that it was improperly coercive, which we reject, having previously concluded that the charge given “ ‘was balanced and neutral in tone, and . . . did not urge any dissenting jurors to abandon their convictions and acquiesce in the opinion of the other jurors, attempt to coerce or compel the jurors to reach a particular verdict, or shame the jurors into reaching a verdict’ ” (People v Anderson, 149 AD3d at 1415, quoting People v Cole *1458 man, 64 AD3d 787, 787 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 835 [2009]; see Peo | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Terrance L. Mackgreen1 sentence2016This Court recently held that, “where counsel has meaningful notice of the content of a jury note and of the trial court’s response, or lack thereof, to that note, the court’s alleged violation of the meaningful response requirement does not constitute a mode of proceedings error, and counsel is required to preserve any claim of error for appellate review” (People v Mack, 27 NY3d 534, 537 [2016], rearg denied 28 NY3d 944 [2016]). | 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. Tabb
green
2 sentences2011In any event, unlike the situation in People v Tabb ( 13 NY3d 852 [2009]), there is record proof that warrants an inescapable inference that in an unrecorded conversation, defense counsel was apprised of the contents of the note (see e.g. 2010The trial court denied the motion without explanation, other than to say, “I don’t know what is in their mind.” On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court’s response to the jurors’ inquiry was a “mode of proceedings” error (see People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852 [2009]) not requiring preservation and warranting reversal. | 2 | 2010–2011 |
People v. Mack
green
1 sentence2016This Court recently held that, “where counsel has meaningful notice of the content of a jury note and of the trial court’s response, or lack thereof, to that note, the court’s alleged violation of the meaningful response requirement does not constitute a mode of proceedings error, and counsel is required to preserve any claim of error for appellate review” (People v Mack, 27 NY3d 534, 537 [2016], rearg denied 28 NY3d 944 [2016]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2013The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support an agency charge, and rejecting defendant’s claims that the trial court committed mode of proceedings errors by failing to disclose the contents of a jury note to defense counsel and by delegating to a court officer the task of delivering a message to the jury ( 88 AD3d 463 [2011]). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. King
green
1 sentence1992We find that the court properly chose to respond to the jury’s request for information (see, CPL 310.30), and that its response to the jury note was not error (see, People v King, 61 NY2d 550 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.