44 Cited authorities

Patterson v. New York
432 U.S. 197 (1977) Cited 2,352 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process does not create “a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.”
People v. Hawkins
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9254 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 1,873 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being argued
People v. Gray
86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 3,227 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
People v. Casey
95 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 1,343 times
Finding nonhearsay allegations including the complainant's supporting deposition, which stated that the order had been issued, was in effect, and that she had personally observed the defendant engage in conduct that violated the order could help to cure an alleged defect in the instrument premised on the failure to provide the underlying court order
Certiorari Denied
534 U.S. 899 (2001) Cited 216 times
OCTOBER 1, 2001 No. 01-5032 PANDO-FRANCO, AKA YSAASAGA-LEYVA v. UNITED STATES. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 01-5033 ROSEN v. NEW YORK. Ct. App. N.Y. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 96 N.Y.2d 329, 752 N.E.2d 329, 752 N.E.2d 844. No. 01-5034 BOOKER v. CAMBRA, WARDEN. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 4 Fed. Appx. 431. No. 01-5035 SNIPES v. UNITED STATES. C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 252 F.3d 1360. No. 01-5036 KING v. WASHINGTON HILTON AND TOWERS. C.A.
People v. O'Rama
78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 568 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict
People v. Rosen
96 N.Y.2d 329 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 342 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no constitutional right to jury trial to establish facts of prior conviction
People v. Whalen
59 N.Y.2d 273 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 446 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Whalen, the defendant argued that identification evidence is "always suspect, so that, when a trial involves a close question of identity, the jury should receive an instruction emphasizing the scrutiny to be given to such evidence.
People v. Thomas
50 N.Y.2d 467 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 468 times
Reversing Appellate Division
People v. Patterson
39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 432 times
In Patterson the Court did not even mention Mullaney until after it had concluded that the issue on the merits was within the special category that always deserves review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.

The People, Respondent,v.James Alcide, Appellant.

44 Cited authorities

Holding that due process does not create “a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.”

Holding that to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being argued

Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict

Finding no constitutional right to jury trial to establish facts of prior conviction

In Whalen, the defendant argued that identification evidence is "always suspect, so that, when a trial involves a close question of identity, the jury should receive an instruction emphasizing the scrutiny to be given to such evidence.

Reversing Appellate Division

In Patterson the Court did not even mention Mullaney until after it had concluded that the issue on the merits was within the special category that always deserves review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.