§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Ronel Joseph, Appellant.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. State v. Danielson

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9814 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 9,457 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"

  2. 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

  3. People v. Mahboubian

    74 N.Y.2d 174 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 557 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding prejudice where defendants's defenses "were not only antagonistic but also mutually exclusive and irreconcilable" and "[t]he jury could not have credited both defenses"

  4. 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"

  5. People v. Kennedy

    47 N.Y.2d 196 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 362 times
    Noting that “cases involving circumstantial evidence must be closely reviewed because they often require the jury to undertake a more complex and problematical reasoning process than do cases based on direct evidence”

  6. People v. Cabey

    85 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 209 times

    Argued February 16, 1995 Decided March 30, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Bonnie G. Wittner, J. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney of Bronx County, Bronx (Andrew J. Shipe and Susan L. Valle of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, New York City (Adam D. Cole of counsel), E. Joshua Rosenkranz and Mark Gimpel for respondent-appellant. SMITH, J. The issue in this case of attempted murder is whether

  7. People v. Gaines

    74 N.Y.2d 358 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to establish a burglary charge, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant's intent to commit a crime existed at the time he or she entered the premises unlawfully

  8. People v. Mackey

    49 N.Y.2d 274 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 216 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "unless there is read into the words `a crime' more than the Legislature has stated, intent to commit a specific crime is not an element, and the necessity for particulars, and with it the due process question, disappears"

  9. People v. Samuels

    99 N.Y.2d 20 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 94 times

    14014102 Argued October 9, 2002. Decided November 14, 2002. APPEALS, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered May 22, 2001, which affirmed two judgments of the Supreme Court (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), rendered in New York County upon a verdict convicting each defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Lisa Joy Robertson, for appellant. Donald J. Siewert, for respondent

  10. People v. Kims

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7196 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 61 times

    10-23-2014 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant–Respondent, v. Stanley R. KIMS, II, Respondent–Appellant. Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Harmony A. Healy of counsel), and Karen F. McGee and Hannah E.C. Moore, New York Prosecutors Training Institute, Albany, for appellant-respondent. Davison Law Office, PLLC, Canandaigua (Mark C. Davison of counsel), for respondent-appellant. RIVERA, J. Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Harmony A. Healy of counsel), and