New York Court of Appeals· 11/15/2001

People v. Whipple

Citations

760 N.E.2d 337
97 N.Y.2d 1
734 N.Y.S.2d 549
2001 N.Y. LEXIS 3410

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that; under New York law, district courts have discretion to deny a state’s motion to reopen ’following a defense motion to dismiss
holding that the district court may allow a prosecutor to reopen its case in response to a defense motion for acquittal if “the missing element is simple to prove and not seriously contested, and reopening the 'case does not unduly prejudice the defense”
rejecting an Allen-like approach, and instead holding that, under the facts before it, the district court did not err by allowing the prosecutor to reopen its case in response to defendant’s motion for acquittal
“The motion for a trial order of dismissal gave the People notice of the technical omission, and the issue now is whether, as a matter of law, a trial court may never permit the People to act on such notice — a sort of ‘gotcha’ principle of law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kaye

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named People v. Whipple

16 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.