23 Cited authorities

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,635 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"
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,646 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
People v. Kendzia
64 N.Y.2d 331 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 588 times
Holding that the time it takes to decide the defendant's speedy trial motion is excludable
People v. Manini
79 N.Y.2d 561 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 409 times 5 Legal Analyses
Observing that a defendant may constructively possess drugs by exercising dominion and control over them through his authority over the person who physically possesses them, or through his access to or control over the place where they are kept
People v. Stiles
70 N.Y.2d 765 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 210 times
In People v. Stiles, 70 N.Y.2d 765 (1987), the Court was faced with the issue of whether the first day of the statutory period under CPL § 30.30 should be included or excluded in computing speedy trial time calculations.
People v. Sibblies
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2377 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 94 times
Holding statement of readiness invalid in light of People's subsequent statement of unreadiness based on the need to obtain medical records
People v. Chavis
91 N.Y.2d 500 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 139 times
In People v. Chavis (91 N.Y.2d 500, 506), the Court again noted that "the People were able to toll the `speedy trial clock' by filing a notice of readiness".
People v. Smith
82 N.Y.2d 676 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 131 times
In People v Smith (82 N.Y.2d 676), for example, the Court rejected the argument that an adjournment sought by the People that is extended by the court beyond the date requested should partially be excluded from speedy trial time.
People v. Price
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1013 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 69 times
In People v Price, 14 NY3d 61 [2010], the Court of Appeals found that the People are not required to obtain a prior judicial ruling before time may be excluded under the exceptional circumstances provisions of that statute.
People v. Brothers
50 N.Y.2d 413 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 160 times
In People v Brothers (50 N.Y.2d 413, 415), also relied upon by the majority, for instance, the case was placed on a "ready reserve" calendar for almost a year, during which the People did nothing to move the case.

The People, Respondent,v.Scott Barden, Appellant.

23 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"

Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Holding that the time it takes to decide the defendant's speedy trial motion is excludable

Observing that a defendant may constructively possess drugs by exercising dominion and control over them through his authority over the person who physically possesses them, or through his access to or control over the place where they are kept

In People v. Stiles, 70 N.Y.2d 765 (1987), the Court was faced with the issue of whether the first day of the statutory period under CPL § 30.30 should be included or excluded in computing speedy trial time calculations.

Holding statement of readiness invalid in light of People's subsequent statement of unreadiness based on the need to obtain medical records

In People v. Chavis (91 N.Y.2d 500, 506), the Court again noted that "the People were able to toll the `speedy trial clock' by filing a notice of readiness".

In People v Smith (82 N.Y.2d 676), for example, the Court rejected the argument that an adjournment sought by the People that is extended by the court beyond the date requested should partially be excluded from speedy trial time.

In People v Price, 14 NY3d 61 [2010], the Court of Appeals found that the People are not required to obtain a prior judicial ruling before time may be excluded under the exceptional circumstances provisions of that statute.

In People v Brothers (50 N.Y.2d 413, 415), also relied upon by the majority, for instance, the case was placed on a "ready reserve" calendar for almost a year, during which the People did nothing to move the case.