§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant-Respondent,v.Stanley R. Kims, II, Respondent-Appellant.

Brief

19 Cited authorities

  1. Griffin v. United States

    502 U.S. 46 (1991)   Cited 1,125 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a general guilty verdict on a multiple-object conspiracy need not be set aside if the evidence is adequate to support conviction as to one of the objects

  2. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,689 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"

  3. People v. Becoats

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7306 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 95 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Becoats, 17 N.Y.3d 643, 934 N.Y.S.2d 737, 958 N.E.2d 865 (2011), defendant contended that the indictment was facially duplicitous.

  4. People v. Daniels

    37 N.Y.2d 624 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 251 times
    In Daniels the evidence showed that two defendants were apprehended in the apartment with drugs in open view, and the third defendant, in whose apartment the drugs were found, was arrested after he was observed leaving the apartment.

  5. People v. Ribowsky

    77 N.Y.2d 284 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 111 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that perjury concealing conspiracy was cognizable overt act

  6. People v. Giordano

    87 N.Y.2d 441 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 58 times
    Finding N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 20.60 "provides that oral statements made over the telephone are deemed to be statements made in both the sending and receiving counties"

  7. People v. Martinez

    83 N.Y.2d 26 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Martinez, we concluded that where a jury returns a general verdict and it is impossible to determine if the verdict was based on an illegal charge, or on an alternative proper charge ? in Martinez, as here, the alternative charge was on constructive possession ? the error cannot be harmless (83 NY2d 26). If there is some evidence to which the jury could have applied the impermissible charge to reach an erroneous verdict, then a new trial should be ordered.

  8. People v. Kims

    96 A.D.3d 1595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 9 times

    2012-06-15 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stanley R. KIMS, II, Defendant–Appellant. Davison Law Office, PLLC, Canandaigua (Mark C. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Stanley R. Kims, II, Defendant–Appellant pro se. Davison Law Office, PLLC, Canandaigua (Mark C. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Stanley R. Kims, II, Defendant–Appellant pro se. Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Harmony A. Healy of Counsel), for Respondent. PRESENT: SCUDDER

  9. People v. Coleman

    26 A.D.3d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 12 times

    KA 03-02289. February 3, 2006. Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered July 30, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree. THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BARBARA J. DAVIES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. FRANK J. CLARK

  10. People v. Rosado

    96 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    2012-06-19 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent ROSADO, Defendant–Appellant. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David J. Klem of counsel), and DLA Piper LLP (US), New York (Jeffrey Rottenberg of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Allen J. Vickey of counsel), for respondent. GONZALEZ Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David J. Klem of counsel), and DLA Piper LLP (US), New York (Jeffrey Rottenberg