People v. Watkins
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Hogue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Hogue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- HOGUE, GERALD E., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Stewart (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- SANFORD, JR., ROSS, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Sanford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Sanford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Holloway (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- People v. Morris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of various crimes involving damages to or thefts from five mausoleums at the Mt. Hope Cemetery in Rochester, New York, defendant contends that reversal is required because Supreme Court permitted the People, as part of their direct case, to introduce evidence of prior uncharged crimes, without conducting a Ventimiglia hearing (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350).
We conclude that the court’s failure to conduct a Ventimiglia hearing was error, but that the error is harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt. There is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for that error (see, People v Thomas, 207 AD2d 1029, lv denied 84 NY2d 1016; People v Holloway, 185 AD2d 646, 647, lv denied 80 NY2d 1027).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the court committed reversible error by failing either to read the list of prospective witnesses to the prospective jurors or to ask the prospective jurors whether any of the prospective witnesses were known to them; the court erred in excusing
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.