47 Cited authorities

State v. Danielson
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9814 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 9,447 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"
People v. Romero
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8640 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 4,924 times
No. 151. Argued October 18, 2006. Decided November 21, 2006. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 11, 2005. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of murder in the second degree. People v. Romero, 22 AD3d 287, affirmed. Center
People v. Bleakley
69 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 11,291 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Appellate Division committed reversible error when it "avoid[ed] its exclusive statutory authority to review the weight of the evidence in criminal cases"
Patterson v. New York
432 U.S. 197 (1977) Cited 2,352 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. Casey
95 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 1,343 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
People v. Kalin
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2446 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 687 times
In Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381, the Court of Appeals examined an information which had charged the defendant with, among other things, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree for the possession of nine plastic bags of heroin.
People v. Alejandro
70 N.Y.2d 133 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 1,214 times
Reviewing the legislature's intent to create a "demanding standard" for the sufficiency of informations
People v. Dumas
68 N.Y.2d 729 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 713 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting lack of allegation that police officer was an expert in identifying marijuana or that defendant represented it as such, to support charge that defendant sold marijuana
People v. Iannone
45 N.Y.2d 589 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 830 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the defendants in these two appeals have failed to preserve a question of law which this court may review and have waived their objections to the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the indictments by which they were brought before the courts"
People v. Patterson
39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 432 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.

The People, Respondent,v.Roosevelt Jennings, Appellant.

47 Cited authorities

Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"

Holding that the Appellate Division committed reversible error when it "avoid[ed] its exclusive statutory authority to review the weight of the evidence in criminal cases"

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.”

In Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381, the Court of Appeals examined an information which had charged the defendant with, among other things, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree for the possession of nine plastic bags of heroin.

Reviewing the legislature's intent to create a "demanding standard" for the sufficiency of informations

Noting lack of allegation that police officer was an expert in identifying marijuana or that defendant represented it as such, to support charge that defendant sold marijuana

Holding that "the defendants in these two appeals have failed to preserve a question of law which this court may review and have waived their objections to the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the indictments by which they were brought before the courts"

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.