§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Patricia Fratangelo, Appellant.

Brief

12 Cited authorities

  1. Mathews v. United States

    485 U.S. 58 (1988)   Cited 1,241 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant is only entitled to an entrapment instruction when "there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment"

  2. People v. Watts

    57 N.Y.2d 299 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 394 times
    Holding that defendant's statement that victim "came after [defendant] in his room with a kitchen knife," standing alone, "provides no basis for determining that he was in imminent danger of being subjected to deadly physical force"

  3. People v. Butts

    72 N.Y.2d 746 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 173 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued November 18, 1988 Decided December 20, 1988 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Herman Cahn, J. Martha Krisel and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Paul Schectman and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent. HANCOCK, JR., J. The dispositive question in this appeal is whether the evidence at trial reasonably supported defendant's request for a jury charge on the affirmative defense of entrapment.

  4. People v. Mertz

    68 N.Y.2d 136 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 166 times
    Concluding that under per se statute, proof of BAC of .10% or more within two hours after arrest establishes prima facie evidence of driving under the influence which together with other evidence of intoxication is sufficient to sustain a conviction, absent evidence from which the trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was under .10% at the time of driving such as expert testimony

  5. People v. Steele

    26 N.Y.2d 526 (N.Y. 1970)   Cited 194 times
    Holding that defendant, charged with assault, was entitled to an instruction on defense of a third person, despite his testimony that he was not even at the scene of the crime; on the particular record before the court, the prosecution's witnesses created the opportunity for the defense; "[s]ince a jury might disbelieve the alibi and still find, on the prosecution's evidence, that defendant acted justifiably, the prosecution claim of inconsistent defenses is not a bar to the charge requested"

  6. People v. Zona

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3801 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 32 times
    Noting that a criminal defendant asserting that he had permission to take an item would only be insulated from liability for larceny if he had "a good faith belief that the property was appropriated under a claim of right"

  7. People v. Blair

    98 N.Y.2d 722 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 13 times
    In Blair, the accusatory instrument indicated that the defendant committed a traffic infraction, by driving without headlights or taillights.

  8. People v. Mleczko

    298 N.Y. 153 (N.Y. 1948)   Cited 105 times
    In People v. Mleczko (298 N.Y. 153, 162-163) the court said: "An appellate court is directed to disregard `technical errors * * * which do not affect * * * substantial rights' (Code Crim. Pro., § 542).

  9. People v. Ochs

    3 N.Y.2d 54 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 51 times

    Argued April 10, 1957 Decided May 24, 1957 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, NATHAN R. SOBEL, J. Lloyd L. Rosenthal for appellant. Edward S. Silver, District Attorney ( David Diamond of counsel), for respondent. FROESSEL, J. Defendant was convicted of first degree robbery. He does not contend on this appeal that the verdict of guilt is not supported by the evidence. Indeed, there is ample evidence from which a jury could find defendant's guilt

  10. People v. Carborano

    301 N.Y. 39 (N.Y. 1950)   Cited 60 times
    In People v. Carborano (301 N.Y. 39), the defendant in that case was convicted of two crimes of grand larceny in the first degree, and the record contains sufficient evidence to have warranted a verdict of guilt.