People v. Cooper

2 Citing cases

  1. Posey v. State

    548 P.3d 1245 (Okla. Crim. App. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    We further observe a New York court considering whether a defendant had standing to challenge material witness proceedings found it is the witness and not the defendant who possesses all the rights. See People v. Davis, 163 A.D.2d 826, 558 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1090) (holding defendant lacked standing to challenge propriety of materia witness proceedings). ¶35 In the absence of any contrary authority, we find that Posey has no standing to challenge T.W.’s material witness proceeding, a proceeding involving a third party, as the rights outlined in Section 720 belong to her rather than Posey.

  2. People v. Ott

    200 A.D.3d 1642 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    There also is no merit to defendant's remaining allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel (see generallyPeople v. Caban , 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005] ; Benevento , 91 N.Y.2d at 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor commented upon defendant exercising his right to remain silent. Insofar as the prosecutor improperly characterized defendant's silence as evidence of his consciousness of guilt (see generallyPeople v. Conyers , 52 N.Y.2d 454, 457-460, 438 N.Y.S.2d 741, 420 N.E.2d 933 [1981] ), such impropriety was obviated when the court sustained defendant's objection to that comment and gave a curative instruction to the jury (seePeople v. Simpson , 151 A.D.3d 762, 763, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 [2d Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1063, 71 N.Y.S.3d 13, 94 N.E.3d 495 [2017] ; People v. Davis , 163 A.D.2d 826, 827, 558 N.Y.S.2d 358 [4th Dept. 1990], lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 939, 563 N.Y.S.2d 68, 564 N.E.2d 678 [1990], reconsideration denied 76 N.Y.2d 939, 563 N.Y.S.2d 68, 564 N.E.2d 678 [1990] ), and, in any event, such impropriety is harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt and the lack of any reasonable possibility that defendant otherwise would have been acquitted (see generallyPeople v. Crimmins , 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ). Defendant's contention that the court erred in permitting a police officer to testify that eyewitnesses identified defendant during showup identification procedures lacks merit.