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.
6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2000 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. Rosariogreen2 sentences2000The Supreme Court applied a per se reversible error standard to the Rosario claim (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , cert denied 368 US 866 ) raised in the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 because the motion was filed before his direct appeal had been concluded. 1989In rejecting the argument that reversal was thereby mandated, the court noted that the per se reversible error rule of Rosario (supra) applies only when “the People fail completely to provide the material to the defendant even though they continue to possess it (Supra, at 940 [emphasis added]; see also, People v Jones, 70 NY2d 547, 550 [Rosario applies "if the People are in possession of a statement of their own prospective witness”] [emphasis added].) The restriction of Rosario (supra) to documents in the People’s possession does not, of course, relieve the prosecutor of the responsibility fo | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sandersgreen1 sentence1998We decline, however, to extend the per se reversible error rule (see, People v Sanders, 70 NY2d 837, 838) to the circumstances here presented, where the appellant’s verdict sheet was proper but a codefendant’s verdict sheet violated the rule in People v Damiano (supra). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1989In rejecting the argument that reversal was thereby mandated, the court noted that the per se reversible error rule of Rosario (supra) applies only when “the People fail completely to provide the material to the defendant even though they continue to possess it (Supra, at 940 [emphasis added]; see also, People v Jones, 70 NY2d 547, 550 [Rosario applies "if the People are in possession of a statement of their own prospective witness”] [emphasis added].) The restriction of Rosario (supra) to documents in the People’s possession does not, of course, relieve the prosecutor of the responsibility fo | 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. Jackson
green
2 sentences2000However, in People v Machado ( 90 NY2d 187 ), the Court of Appeals held that a defendant seeking to vacate a judgment on Rosario grounds, either before or after the direct appeal was concluded, had to demonstrate that nondisclosure of the subject material was prejudicial (see, People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 638 ). 1992The over-all analysis of CPL 440.10 (1) (f) set forth in Jackson (supra) provides no logical reason for a motion court to treat Rosario claims raised in preappeal CPL 440.10 motions any differently from those raised in postappeal CPL 440.10 motions. | 2 | 1992–2000 |
People v. MacHado
green
2 sentences2000However, in People v Machado ( 90 NY2d 187 ), the Court of Appeals held that a defendant seeking to vacate a judgment on Rosario grounds, either before or after the direct appeal was concluded, had to demonstrate that nondisclosure of the subject material was prejudicial (see, People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 638 ). 1999The use of material submitted on a post verdict motion would seem even more objectionable, as it is a direct expansion of the record * * * “Wholly apart from this, one cannot help but wonder why, if the reasonable possibility standard can be sufficient to properly ‘safeguard [ ] both the interest in fairness to the defendants and the interest in assuring the People’s careful discharge of their disclosure obligation’ (People v Machado, supra, 90 N.Y.2d at 193 ), that standard should not be applied in lieu of the punitive per se standard to determine any Rosario based motion made after the jury | 2 | 1999–2000 |
Cummings v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2000The Supreme Court applied a per se reversible error standard to the Rosario claim (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , cert denied 368 US 866 ) raised in the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 because the motion was filed before his direct appeal had been concluded. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Damiano
green
1 sentence1998We decline, however, to extend the per se reversible error rule (see, People v Sanders, 70 NY2d 837, 838) to the circumstances here presented, where the appellant’s verdict sheet was proper but a codefendant’s verdict sheet violated the rule in People v Damiano (supra). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Ranghelle
green
1 sentence1992By adopting a "reasonable possibility of prejudice” standard the Court of Appeals obviously took a step away from the per se reversible error "rule without reason” of Ranghelle (supra). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Longo v. Tafaro
green
1 sentence1989That obligation, however, in no way undercuts the rule of Fishman (supra), Reedy (supra) and Matter of Gina C. (supra), since police agencies are part of the criminal law enforcement community, which is considered to be peculiarly within the prosecutor’s control. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
In re Gina C.
green
1 sentence1989That obligation, however, in no way undercuts the rule of Fishman (supra), Reedy (supra) and Matter of Gina C. (supra), since police agencies are part of the criminal law enforcement community, which is considered to be peculiarly within the prosecutor’s control. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Reedy
green
1 sentence1989That obligation, however, in no way undercuts the rule of Fishman (supra), Reedy (supra) and Matter of Gina C. (supra), since police agencies are part of the criminal law enforcement community, which is considered to be peculiarly within the prosecutor’s control. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.