A00123Introduced in the Assembly
Establishes an assumption of the inadmissibility of evidence of a defendant's creative or artistic expression against such defendant in a criminal proceeding; requires the proffering party to affirmatively prove that the evidence is admissible by clear and convincing evidence.
Introduced by Catalina Cruz, District 39
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Establishes an assumption of the inadmissibility of evidence of a defendant's creative or artistic expression against such defendant in a criminal proceeding; requires the proffering party to affirmatively prove that the evidence is admissible by clear and convincing evidence.
Where it stands
substituted by s464
March 3, 2025
How did lawmakers vote?
AssemblyStage: Assembly Codes Committee: Favorable · February 25, 2025
15
Yes
6
No
1
Absent or Not Voting
22 assemblymembers recorded in this Assembly vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each assemblymember voted
| Assemblymember | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Charles Lavine | 13 | Yes |
| John Mikulin | 17 | No |
| David Weprin | 24 | Yes |
| Andrew Hevesi | 28 | Yes |
| Vivian Cook | 32 | Absent |
| Clyde Vanel | 33 | Yes |
| Catalina Cruz | 39 | Yes |
| Brian Cunningham | 43 | Yes |
| Latrice Walker | 55 | Yes |
| Michael Reilly | 62 | No |
Bill history
referred to codes
reported
advanced to third reading cal.24
substituted by s464
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.