You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE VERDICT...
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE VERDICT AS REPUGNANT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals reversed People v Jennings, 2021 NY Slip Op 00944 [191 AD3d 1429], Fourth Dept 2-11-21. The facts were not described:

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that Court. Counsel’s failure to challenge the verdict as repugnant did not render the representation ineffective because the issue was not clear-cut and dispositive given the jury charge … . People v Jennings, 2021 NY Slip Op 06428, Ct App 11-18-21​

 

You might also like
Consecutive Nature of Sentence is Collateral Consequence of Conviction
EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND.
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 7, DEFENDANT HAD LONG-TERM NON-SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE VICTIMS BEFORE THE ABUSE STARTED, DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIPS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF VICTIMIZATION.
INSURERS MAY PROPERLY REFUSE NO-FAULT INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY NONPHYSICIANS, THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE FRAUDULENT INTENT OR CONDUCT TANTAMOUNT TO FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR NONPARTY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH THE NONPARTIES REPEATEDLY ASSERTED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS HARMLESS (CT APP).
TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE ADMISSION OF DNA PROFILES WAS HEARSAY WHICH VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (CT APP). ​
Comptroller Has Authority to Audit Private Health Care Providers Who Are Paid through an Insurance Company Under Contract with the State for Health Care Provided to State Employees
LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD.
Employment Discrimination Claim Stated Under the NYC Human Rights Law But Not Under the State Human Rights Law

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

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN ARMED FELONY, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED... THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION, STATING...