Legal Opinion
People v. Eldridge
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 2, 1996PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unani*984mously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen defendant’s case after the jury had begun deliberations. Defendant failed to establish that the proffered testimony concerned an essential element that was overlooked or that newly discovered evidence warranted reopening the proof (see, People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349; People v Sumpter, 199 AD2d 1042, Iv denied 83 NY2d 859).
Defense counsel’s failure to move for an adjournment to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. BaldiNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. OlsenNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- People v. DaleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- People v. SumpterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- People v. OakleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. OrsoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- People v. WilliamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- People v. ClarkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- People v. MendezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996