§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Darius Dubarry, Appellant.

Brief

48 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,395 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

  2. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,575 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  3. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,684 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

  4. People v. Suarez

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 9811 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 322 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding depraved indifference charge was not appropriate where defendant intended to kill an individual and did kill that individual, even if the killing was done in a depraved manner.

  5. People v. Geraci

    85 N.Y.2d 359 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 240 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting procedure and burden of proof established by Holtzman

  6. People v. Cabey

    85 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 209 times

    Argued February 16, 1995 Decided March 30, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Bonnie G. Wittner, J. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney of Bronx County, Bronx (Andrew J. Shipe and Susan L. Valle of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, New York City (Adam D. Cole of counsel), E. Joshua Rosenkranz and Mark Gimpel for respondent-appellant. SMITH, J. The issue in this case of attempted murder is whether

  7. People v. Cotto

    92 N.Y.2d 68 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 162 times
    Finding that trial court did not err in admitting victim's statements heard by police officer and EMT under excited utterance exception to hearsay rule where victim was severely wounded by gunshot from close range and attempted to escape additional shots fired at him by defendant, sustained severe injuries leading EMT to conclude he would die, victim was in great pain and condition worsened, and his physical shock and trauma never subsided

  8. People v. Gallagher

    69 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 190 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the defendant's conviction and ordering a new trial where the defendant was convicted simultaneously of intentional murder, N.Y. Penal L. § 125.25, and reckless manslaughter in the second degree, N.Y. Penal L. § 125.15, a lesser included offense of depraved mind murder

  9. People v. Trappier

    87 N.Y.2d 55 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that guilty jury verdict against defendant for both attempted assault and reckless endangerment was not "repugnant" or "inconsistent" because the jury could permissibly find "that the defendant acted intentionally as to one result and recklessly as to a distinct, more serious result"

  10. People v. Bennett

    79 N.Y.2d 464 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 136 times
    In Bennett, the victim was stopped by a police officer who advised her that she had been driving erratically and had failed to signal a lane change.