Tatum v. Langley

How courts have described this case

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

• defendant’s claim was not preserved for appellate review where the court “expressly decided” a question in response to the jury’s inquiry
• “A 1986 amendment to the statute defining New York’s contemporaneous- objection rule, CPL 470.05(2), amended the second sentence thereof by adding to it a final clause 18 There is a typographical error in New York Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).