People v. Glenn
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Irvine (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Montgomery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- People v. Loiseau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Ackley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Paylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. Terry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- People v. Davidson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- People v. Hardy (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)
- People v. Hardy (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)
- People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. LaPetina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Radovic v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1996)
- People v. Bell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Hunts (New York Supreme Court 1995)
- People v. Radtke (New York Supreme Court 1992)
- People v. Nelu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Ali (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Paylor (N.Y. 1987)
- People v. Wilkins (N.Y. 1985)
- People v. Reddick (N.Y. 1985)
- People v. Wagman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People v. Alston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People v. Harris (N.Y. 1982)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
On cross-examination the trial court, over repeated objection, allowed the District Attorney to question defendant not only as to whether he had conferred with his attorney about the case but as well as to the subject matter of their conversation, viz., the law of self-defense. We agree with the Appellate Division that the latter was error. The District Attorney plainly sought to probe defendant’s confidential discussions with his attorney on a matter which was the principal issue in the case and, by compelling defendant to admit that his attorney had informed him of the legal requirements of the justification defense, violated the attorney-client privilege.
We cannot agree with the Appellate Division, however, that the error was harmless. The weight and nature of the proof of guilt, taken in light of the assertion of self-defense, was not overwhelming. Thus there is no basis for consideration of the application here of the harmless error doctrine.
We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find they were not preserved for our review.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.