§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant-Respondent,v.Hazel E. Gordon, Respondent-Appellant.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,657 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"

  2. State v. Danielson

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9814 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 9,468 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"

  3. People v. Contes

    60 N.Y.2d 620 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 11,960 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating the standard for review of the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"

  4. People v. Jennings

    69 N.Y.2d 103 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 763 times
    In Jennings, the president of the insured (Sentry) received a check from Sentry's insurer to cover payments owed to the Sentry's clients as a result of losses incurred when the Sentry's warehouse was robbed.

  5. People v. Steinberg

    79 N.Y.2d 673 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 351 times
    Holding that "jury could have inferred from the evidence that defendant’s objective in assaulting Lisa and failing to summon medical assistance was to cause serious physical injury"

  6. People v. Williams

    84 N.Y.2d 925 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 296 times

    Argued October 26, 1994 Decided November 29, 1994 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Lee Clary, J. James T. King, District Attorney of Jefferson County, Watertown (Cindy F. Intschert of counsel), for appellant. Michael F. Young, Lowville, and James R. McGraw, Syracuse, for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the case remitted to that court for consideration of the facts (see, CPL 470.25 [d]; 470

  7. People v. Barnes

    50 N.Y.2d 375 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 443 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the relevant "moral certainty" standard "does not apply to a situation where, as here, both direct and circumstantial evidence are employed to demonstrate a defendant's culpability"

  8. People v. Jensen

    86 N.Y.2d 248 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 208 times

    Argued June 7, 1995 Decided July 5, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, William C. Barrett, J. Michael D. Pinnisi, Ithaca, for appellant. George M. Dentes, District Attorney of Tompkins County, Ithaca (Gary U. Surdell of counsel), for respondent. CIPARICK, J. The question presented on this appeal is whether the Grand Jury evidence is legally sufficient to support the indictment. We agree with the Appellate Division that it is. On November

  9. People v. Santi

    3 N.Y.3d 234 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 159 times
    In People v. Santi, 3 N.Y.3d 234, 243, 785 N.Y.S.2d 405, 818 N.E.2d 1146 (2004), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the long established policy that, " '[i]n implementing a statute, the courts must of necessity examine the purpose of the statute and determine the intention of the Legislature.' " citing, Willams v. Williams, 23 N.Y.2d 592, 598, 298 N.Y.S.2d 473, 246 N.E.2d 333 (1969).

  10. People v. Smith

    79 N.Y.2d 309 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that a robbery defendant must use or threaten force with the "conscious objective" of accomplishing theft