People v. Tabb

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 13 N.Y.3d 852, 891 N.Y.S.2d 686, 920 N.E.2d 90

Decision Date: 11/24/2009

Docket Number: 213 SSM 47

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Tabb, 13 N.Y.3d 852, 891 N.Y.S.2d 686, 920 N.E.2d 90 (2009)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2009


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 52 decisions
52
Citing decisions
2
Authorities cited
5
Courts citing

Citations by decade

1
47
4
2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.42
N.Y.5
NY3
2d Cir.1
N.Y. App. Term.1
Most recently cited by10
  • 2026People v. Galindo NY
  • 2021People v. Dennis N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2020People v. Grant N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2020People v. Petrizzo N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2019People v. Adderly N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2019People v. Copeland N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2018People v. Morrison NY
  • 2018People v. Parker NY
  • 2018People v. Gedeon N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2018People v. Cea (Vincent) N.Y. App. Term.
Cites 2 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christian Tabb, Appellant.

Attorneys

  • APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
  • Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo {Robert B. Hallborg, Jr., David C. Schopp and Barbara J. Davies of counsel), for appellant.
  • Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo {Raymond C. Herman of counsel), for respondent.
majority Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial court that asked for direction on, or an explanation of, “the legal definition of self defense.” Nothing in the record indicates that the court informed defense counsel and the prosecutor about the contents of the note. In the absence of record proof that the trial court complied with its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30, a mode of proceedings error occurred requiring reversal (see e.g. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]; People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270, 277 [1991]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.