30 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,408 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,644 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
State v. Danielson
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9814 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 9,453 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"
People v. Bleakley
69 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 11,296 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"
Kotteakos v. United States
328 U.S. 750 (1946) Cited 6,292 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a non-constitutional error is harmless unless the error is shown to have had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict"
People v. Hawkins
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9254 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 1,877 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being argued
People v. Caban
5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 1,638 times
Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,685 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"
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. Alfaro
66 N.Y.2d 985 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 375 times
In People v Alfaro (66 NY2d 985), a case which was distinguished from Carter, the Court of Appeals emphasized that CPL 330.30 provides that a court may set aside or modify the verdict on any ground which would require reversal or modification as a matter of law by an appellate court.

The People, Respondent,v.Alfred Gary, Appellant.

30 Cited authorities

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

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

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 a non-constitutional error is harmless unless the error is shown to have had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict"

Holding that to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being argued

Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth

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"

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).

In People v Alfaro (66 NY2d 985), a case which was distinguished from Carter, the Court of Appeals emphasized that CPL 330.30 provides that a court may set aside or modify the verdict on any ground which would require reversal or modification as a matter of law by an appellate court.