35 Cited authorities

Patterson v. New York
432 U.S. 197 (1977) Cited 2,356 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 1,877 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. Casey
95 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 1,346 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
Snyder v. Massachusetts
291 U.S. 97 (1934) Cited 2,463 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant had no right of presence at jury’s viewing of the crime scene because he couldn’t have gained anything from being there
People v. O'Rama
78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 571 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. Dokes
79 N.Y.2d 656 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 305 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant's presence required at Sandoval hearing
People v. Patterson
39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 433 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.
People v. Favor
82 N.Y.2d 254 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 247 times
Holding right to be present at Sandoval hearing conferred by state law
People v. Starling
85 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 190 times
Holding that "the statutory definition of the term [sell] conspicuously excludes any requirement that the transfer be commercial in nature or conducted for a particular type of benefit or underlying purpose"

The People, Appellant,v.Anner Rivera, Respondent.

35 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 that defendant had no right of presence at jury’s viewing of the crime scene because he couldn’t have gained anything from being there

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

Holding defendant's presence required at Sandoval hearing

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.

Holding right to be present at Sandoval hearing conferred by state law

Holding that "the statutory definition of the term [sell] conspicuously excludes any requirement that the transfer be commercial in nature or conducted for a particular type of benefit or underlying purpose"