People v. Alcide
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Alcide (N.Y. 2013)
- BROWN, TAYE, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Alcide (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- KAHLEY, DALE, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Kahley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Kahley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Gadson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Gadson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Walston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Walston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J), rendered December 12, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s procedure for handling certain jury notes violated the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Bryant, 82 AD3d 1114 [2011]), and we decline to reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Since the jury merely requested read-backs of certain trial testimony, the alleged error did not constitute a mode of proceedings error which would obviate the preservation requirement (see People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509 [1995]; People v Bryant, 82 AD3d at 1114).
The defendant’s contention regarding the Supreme Court’s participation in reading back certain trial testimony is also unpreserved for appellate review, and we also decline to review that contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.