You are here: / / Admission in Evidence of Defendant’s Statements About Prior Murders Did N...
,

Admission in Evidence of Defendant’s Statements About Prior Murders Did Not Rise to a Constitutional Injury—Harmless Error Doctrine Applied

The Court of Appeals held that the admission at trial of statements made by the defendant indicating he had committed murders other than the murder with which he was charged “did not rise to the level of constitutional injury such as ineffectiveness of counsel or juror partiality.”  Therefore, the harmless error doctrine applied and, in light of the evidence against the defendant, the conviction was affirmed.  People v Byer, No 84, CtApp, 4-25-13

 

You might also like
UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 21, AN ASSAULT AT WORK IS EMPLOYMENT-RELATED AND COMPENSABLE ABSENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE ASSAULT WAS MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL ANIMOSITY (CT APP).
A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law
Hearsay Evidence of Another’s Admission to the Crime Warranted a Hearing Pursuant to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Conviction
Sexual Conduct That Does Not Rise to the Level of a SORA Sex Offense May Be Considered Under the “Number of Victims” Risk Factor
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DREW HIS GUN BEFORE THE UNARMED VICTIM “SWIPED” AT IT, THE DEFENDANT WAS THE INITIAL “DEADLY FORCE” AGGRESSOR AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION (CT APP).
RULE THAT RETIRED JUDGES WHO RETURN TO THE BENCH CANNOT RECEIVE BOTH A SALARY AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS IS NEITHER ILLEGAL NOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Medical Corporation Not Responsible for Unauthorized Disclosure of Medical Information by Employee Acting Outside the Scope of Employment
​ THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINSTRATIVE CODE PROVISION CRIMINALIZING THE USE OF CERTAIN RESTRAINTS WHICH RESTRICT AIR AND BLOOD FLOW IS VALID (CT APP). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SORA Proof Burdens Explained Misbehavior Report Did Not Supply Sufficient Notice of Alleged Offense