20 Cited authorities

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,630 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"
People v. Contes
60 N.Y.2d 620 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 11,959 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating the standard for review of the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"
People v. Hawkins
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9254 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 1,877 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 3,231 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
People v. Hines
97 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 710 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that in a post-verdict CPL § 330.30 motion, "an insufficiency argument may not be addressed unless it has been properly reserved for review during the trial"
People v. Bynum
70 N.Y.2d 858 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 423 times
Finding general motion to dismiss at close of evidence insufficient to preserve claim regarding establishment of particular element of crime
People v. Jensen
86 N.Y.2d 248 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 208 times
Argued June 7, 1995 Decided July 5, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, William C. Barrett, J. Michael D. Pinnisi, Ithaca, for appellant. George M. Dentes, District Attorney of Tompkins County, Ithaca (Gary U. Surdell of counsel), for respondent. CIPARICK, J. The question presented on this appeal is whether the Grand Jury evidence is legally sufficient to support the indictment. We agree with the Appellate Division that it is. On November
People v. Peacock
68 N.Y.2d 675 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 92 times
In People v Peacock (68 NY2d 675, 677 [1986]), the Court held that the People had no probable cause to arrest the defendant.
People v. Gonzalez
99 N.Y.2d 76 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 53 times
Holding that a constitutional double jeopardy claim as to whether multiple punishments for the same offense were appropriate was a statutory interpretation question that must be preserved for review
Davis v. City of N.Y.
902 F. Supp. 2d 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) Cited 31 times
Holding that the preceding provision, § 1437d(l), gives tenants "a right to a lease free from unreasonable terms and conditions" that is "actionable under section 1983"

The People, Respondent,v.Nature G. Finch, Appellant.

20 Cited authorities

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"

Stating the standard for review of the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"

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 that in a post-verdict CPL § 330.30 motion, "an insufficiency argument may not be addressed unless it has been properly reserved for review during the trial"

Finding general motion to dismiss at close of evidence insufficient to preserve claim regarding establishment of particular element of crime

In People v Peacock (68 NY2d 675, 677 [1986]), the Court held that the People had no probable cause to arrest the defendant.

Holding that a constitutional double jeopardy claim as to whether multiple punishments for the same offense were appropriate was a statutory interpretation question that must be preserved for review

Holding that the preceding provision, § 1437d(l), gives tenants "a right to a lease free from unreasonable terms and conditions" that is "actionable under section 1983"