11 Cited authorities

United States v. Powell
469 U.S. 57 (1984) Cited 2,044 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant can be convicted of telephone facilitation despite an acquittal on the predicate felony
Dunn v. United States
284 U.S. 390 (1932) Cited 1,492 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury's verdicts can stand even if they are inconsistent, and noting that "acquittal on one count may be explained as an exercise of lenity by the jury that is not necessarily grounded in its view of the evidence"
People v. Tucker
55 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 598 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Tucker, we observed that, where a repugnant verdict was the result, not of irrationality, but mercy, courts "should not... undermine the jury's role and participation by setting aside the verdict" (55 NY2d at 7).
People v. Muhammad
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7302 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 183 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that acquittals on weapon possession counts "did not inherently negate" the element of "intent to cause serious physical injury" of first-degree assault by means of a weapon
People v. Gallagher
69 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 190 times 1 Legal Analyses
Reversing the defendant's conviction and ordering a new trial where the defendant was convicted simultaneously of intentional murder, N.Y. Penal L. § 125.25, and reckless manslaughter in the second degree, N.Y. Penal L. § 125.15, a lesser included offense of depraved mind murder
People v. Abraham
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7825 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 48 times
2013-11-26 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Akiva Daniel ABRAHAM, Appellant. Jonathan S. Fishbein, Delmar, for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), for respondent. Jonathan S. Fishbein, Delmar, for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT Chief Judge LIPPMAN. The primary issue in this case is whether factual inconsistency in a jury verdict acquitting
People v. Delee
108 A.D.3d 1145 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) Cited 11 times
Modifying judgment because, “based on our review of the elements of the offenses as charged to the jury, we conclude that the verdict is inconsistent, i.e., ‘legally impossible,’ insofar as it finds defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime but not guilty of manslaughter in the first degree”
People v. Hampton
61 N.Y.2d 963 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 38 times 1 Legal Analyses
Argued February 21, 1984 Decided March 22, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, John J. Reilly, J. Mario Merola, District Attorney ( Jeremy Gutman and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for appellant. Henry Winestine and William E. Hellerstein for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The trial court charged the jury that if it found that either defendant did not act in concert with the other then it
People v. Delee
995 N.E.2d 861 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 1 times
2013-08-14 People v. DeLee Peradotto App. Div., 4th Dept.: 108 A.D.3d 1145, 969 N.Y.S.2d 350 (Onondaga) Peradotto, J. Granted.
People v. Carbonell
40 N.Y.2d 948 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 27 times
In Carbonell, the court reversed as "internally self-contradictory" a guilty verdict on robbery in the third degree where the jury had acquitted the defendant of larceny and petit larceny.
Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11 Cited 539 times
(a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review

The People, Appellant,v.Dwight R. DeLee, Respondent.

11 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant can be convicted of telephone facilitation despite an acquittal on the predicate felony

Holding that a jury's verdicts can stand even if they are inconsistent, and noting that "acquittal on one count may be explained as an exercise of lenity by the jury that is not necessarily grounded in its view of the evidence"

In Tucker, we observed that, where a repugnant verdict was the result, not of irrationality, but mercy, courts "should not... undermine the jury's role and participation by setting aside the verdict" (55 NY2d at 7).

Stating that acquittals on weapon possession counts "did not inherently negate" the element of "intent to cause serious physical injury" of first-degree assault by means of a weapon

Reversing the defendant's conviction and ordering a new trial where the defendant was convicted simultaneously of intentional murder, N.Y. Penal L. § 125.25, and reckless manslaughter in the second degree, N.Y. Penal L. § 125.15, a lesser included offense of depraved mind murder

In Carbonell, the court reversed as "internally self-contradictory" a guilty verdict on robbery in the third degree where the jury had acquitted the defendant of larceny and petit larceny.