Legal Opinion
People v. Providence
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 29, 2004PublishedCited by 152 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Read, J.
This case turns on whether the trial court undertook a “searching inquiry” to insure that defendant’s request to proceed pro se was accompanied by a “knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel” (People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103 [2002]; see Faretta v California, 422 US 806, 835 [1975]; People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]). We have consistently refrained from creating a catechism for this inquiry, recognizing that it “may occur in a nonformalistic, flexible manner” (People v Smith, 92 NY2d 516, 520 [1998]). Further, when deciding whether…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- People v. McIntyreNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- People v. SawyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- People v. ArroyoNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- People v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by152 opinions
- People v. CrampeNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- People v. SilburnCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 2018
- People v. StoneNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
- People v. Yu-Jen ChangAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. MorrowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
147 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.