§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Curtis Basile, Appellant.

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,951 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

  2. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.

    513 U.S. 64 (1994)   Cited 783 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "the age of the performers is the crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct" under a child-pornography statute, the statute requires that the defendant have knowledge of the performer's age

  3. People v. Gray

    86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 3,232 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

  4. Bullington v. Missouri

    451 U.S. 430 (1981)   Cited 618 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Double Jeopardy Clause prevented imposition of death sentence upon retrial when jury had imposed life imprisonment at the first trial

  5. People v. Feingold

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5233 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 347 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that depraved indifference to human life, rather than recklessness, is the applicable mens rea in statutes in which the former appears

  6. Riley v. County of Broome

    95 N.Y.2d 455 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 390 times
    Holding that the legislative history of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 evinces an intent to impose “a minimum standard of care” on operators of vehicles engaged in roadwork

  7. People v. Ryan

    82 N.Y.2d 497 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 229 times
    Concluding "that there is a mens rea [(i.e., knowingly)] element associated with the weight of the drug" in the offense of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree

  8. Flanagan v. Mt. Eden Gen. Hosp

    24 N.Y.2d 427 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 225 times
    Holding that "[when] a foreign object is left in a patient's body . . . no claim can be made that the patient's action may be feigned or frivolous . . . there is no possible causal break between the negligence of the doctor or hospital and the patient's injury . . . the danger of belated, false or frivolous claims is eliminated"

  9. People v. Garson

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2409 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 61 times
    In People v Garson (6 NY3d 604), the Court of Appeals held that a judge's acceptance of a benefit for the violation of his duty as a public servant, as defined by the Rules of Judicial Conduct, could support a conviction of receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 200.25.

  10. People v. Mezon

    80 N.Y.2d 155 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 90 times
    In People v Mezon (80 NY2d 155, 160-161), the Court of Appeals held: "Once the trial court stated unequivocally that it would permit [the procedure] any further objection * * * would have been futile.

  11. Section 15.15 - Construction of statutes with respect to culpability requirements

    N.Y. Penal Law § 15.15   Cited 92 times

    1. When the commission of an offense defined in this chapter, or some element of an offense, requires a particular culpable mental state, such mental state is ordinarily designated in the statute defining the offense by use of the terms "intentionally," "knowingly," "recklessly" or "criminal negligence," or by use of terms, such as "with intent to defraud" and "knowing it to be false," describing a specific kind of intent or knowledge. When one and only one of such terms appears in a statute defining