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 1986–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2005Where, as here, defendant chooses not to testify before the grand jury or offer any evidence tending to rebut the presumption of possession, an instruction concerning the permissive nature of the presumption is not required (see People v Wilt, 155 AD2d 895 [1989]; cf. People v Pezzimenti, 245 AD2d 1030, 1030 [1997]; People v Williams, supra at 136 ); no error impaired the integrity of the proceeding or caused prejudice to defendant. 1991Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court adequately instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption, noting that the defendant’s testimony should be considered as a basis for rebutting the presumption (see generally, People v Leyva, 38 NY2d 160, 168-170 ; see also, People v Wilt, 155 AD2d 895, 896 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. McKenziegreen2 sentences1995The trial court’s charge sufficiently instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption that the possession of a weapon "is presumptive evidence of* * * intent to use the same unlawfully against * * * another” (Penal Law § 265.15 [4]), and emphasized that the burden of proof remained with the prosecution (see, People v Sanchez, 192 AD2d 562, 563 ; see also, People v McKenzie, 67 NY2d 695, 696 ). 1993The trial court correctly instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption and emphasized that the burden of proof remained with the prosecution (see, People v McKenzie, 67 NY2d 695, 697 ; People v Hines, 173 AD2d 730 ; People v Williams, 136 AD2d 132 ). | 1 | 2 |
County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allengreen1 sentence2006However, permissive presumptions in criminal statutes may not be attacked on their face (see County Court of Ulster Cty. v Allen, 442 US 140, 162-163 [1979]): “Our cases considering the validity of permissive statutory presumptions such as the one involved here have rested on an evaluation of the presumption as applied to the record before the Court. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pezzimentigreen1 sentence2005Where, as here, defendant chooses not to testify before the grand jury or offer any evidence tending to rebut the presumption of possession, an instruction concerning the permissive nature of the presumption is not required (see People v Wilt, 155 AD2d 895 [1989]; cf. People v Pezzimenti, 245 AD2d 1030, 1030 [1997]; People v Williams, supra at 136 ); no error impaired the integrity of the proceeding or caused prejudice to defendant. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whalengreen1 sentence1991In its instructions to the jury, the trial court was not required to use the exact wording requested by the defendant (see, People v Muniz, 62 AD2d 1025 ; see also, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 278-279 ; People v Ko, 133 AD2d 850 ). | 1 | 1 |
Sandstrom v. Montanagreen1 sentence1986The failure of the court to inform the jury of the permissive nature of the presumption of intent unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to the defendant and thus constitutes reversible error (see, Sandstrom v Montana, supra, at p 517). | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences2005Where, as here, defendant chooses not to testify before the grand jury or offer any evidence tending to rebut the presumption of possession, an instruction concerning the permissive nature of the presumption is not required (see People v Wilt, 155 AD2d 895 [1989]; cf. People v Pezzimenti, 245 AD2d 1030, 1030 [1997]; People v Williams, supra at 136 ); no error impaired the integrity of the proceeding or caused prejudice to defendant. 1993The trial court correctly instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption and emphasized that the burden of proof remained with the prosecution (see, People v McKenzie, 67 NY2d 695, 697 ; People v Hines, 173 AD2d 730 ; People v Williams, 136 AD2d 132 ). | 2 | 1993–2005 |
People v. Hodja
neutral
2 sentences1999Viewed as a whole, the court’s charge properly instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption, and emphasized that the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged, including intent, remained with the prosecution (see, People v Hodja, 216 AD2d 415 , lv denied 86 NY2d 796 ). 1999Viewed as a whole, the court’s charge properly instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption, and emphasized that the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged, including intent, remained with the prosecution (see, People v Hodja, 216 AD2d 415 , lv denied 86 NY2d 796 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Suitte
green
2 sentences1995The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). 1993We find that the defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780 ; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). | 2 | 1993–1995 |
People v. Sanchez
neutral
1 sentence1995The trial court’s charge sufficiently instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption that the possession of a weapon "is presumptive evidence of* * * intent to use the same unlawfully against * * * another” (Penal Law § 265.15 [4]), and emphasized that the burden of proof remained with the prosecution (see, People v Sanchez, 192 AD2d 562, 563 ; see also, People v McKenzie, 67 NY2d 695, 696 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Delgado
green
1 sentence1993We find that the defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780 ; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Hines
green
1 sentence1993The trial court correctly instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption and emphasized that the burden of proof remained with the prosecution (see, People v McKenzie, 67 NY2d 695, 697 ; People v Hines, 173 AD2d 730 ; People v Williams, 136 AD2d 132 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1991In its instructions to the jury, the trial court was not required to use the exact wording requested by the defendant (see, People v Muniz, 62 AD2d 1025 ; see also, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 278-279 ; People v Ko, 133 AD2d 850 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Ko
green
1 sentence1991In its instructions to the jury, the trial court was not required to use the exact wording requested by the defendant (see, People v Muniz, 62 AD2d 1025 ; see also, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 278-279 ; People v Ko, 133 AD2d 850 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Leyva
green
1 sentence1991Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court adequately instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption, noting that the defendant’s testimony should be considered as a basis for rebutting the presumption (see generally, People v Leyva, 38 NY2d 160, 168-170 ; see also, People v Wilt, 155 AD2d 895, 896 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.