13 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Guidice

    83 N.Y.2d 630 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 391 times
    In People v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 612 N.Y.S.2d 350, 634 N.E.2d 951 [1994], the victim was punched in the face and hit in the arm with a baseball bat.
  2. People v. Ford

    66 N.Y.2d 428 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 325 times
    Retaining the charge because it emphasizes the need for careful reasoning and "forecloses danger . . . that the trier of facts may leap logical gaps in the proof offered and draw unwarranted conclusion based on probabilities of low degree"
  3. People v. Sanchez

    61 N.Y.2d 1022 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 175 times
    In People v Sanchez (61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024), we held that it was not necessary that a circumstantial evidence charge use the words "moral certainty" but emphasized that "the jury should be instructed in substance that it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence."
  4. People v. Olivo

    52 N.Y.2d 309 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 172 times
    Finding sufficient evidence for petit larceny conviction where store security guard observed defendant conceal set of wrenches and pass cash registers without stopping to pay
  5. People v. Hoke

    468 N.E.2d 677 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 135 times

    Argued May 10, 1984 Decided July 2, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, John J. Clyne, J. Sol Greenberg, District Attorney ( George H. Barber of counsel), for appellant. Douglas P. Rutnik, Public Defender ( Shawn D. Flaherty of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The appeal should be dismissed. Although the Appellate Division order states that reversal of defendant's conviction was on the law, the opinion reveals that it was in fact based

  6. Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax

    63 N.Y.2d 243 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 116 times
    In Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax (63 NY2d 243), the judge declared a mistrial after jurors had declared further deliberations would be fruitless, and this Court found that "it was reasonable for the trial court to avoid any coaxing, inducing or pressuring the jury to return for further deliberations.
  7. People v. Licitra

    47 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued June 8, 1979 Decided July 9, 1979 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, ISAAC RUBIN, J. Carl A. Vergari, District Attorney (Anthony Joseph Servino of counsel), for appellant. George J. Bellantoni for respondent. Chief Judge COOKE. Defendant, Victor Licitra, was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree for recklessly causing the death of his wife (Penal Law, § 125.15, subd 1). The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and dismissed

  8. People v. Rumble

    383 N.E.2d 108 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 77 times

    Argued September 21, 1978 Decided October 24, 1978 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, WILLIAM J. CRANGLE, JR., J. Richard V. Manning for appellant. William H. Power, Jr., District Attorney, for respondent. MEMORANDUM. Order of the Appellate Division affirmed. Defendant's statement to his brother that "I'm not responsible for what I did", if interpreted by the fact finder as a relevant admission of guilt, distinguishes this case from those based

  9. People v. Burke

    466 N.E.2d 158 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 26 times

    Argued May 4, 1984 Decided June 7, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, William C. Barrett, J. Benjamin J. Bucko, District Attorney ( Norma W. Schwab of counsel), for appellant. Richard L. Greenburg for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. In this arson prosecution, the question whether the People's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence turned on the nature of the testimony of the People's

  10. Malave v. Smith

    559 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 2 times
    Stating that a "contention that [a charge based solely on circumstantial evidence] resulted in a heightened burden of proof is simply incorrect" (citing Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d at 380)