§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Richard Garcia, Appellant.

Brief

27 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,391 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"

  2. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,457 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  3. People v. Bleakley

    69 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 11,291 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"

  4. Pointer v. Texas

    380 U.S. 400 (1965)   Cited 4,288 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment”

  5. People v. Contes

    60 N.Y.2d 620 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 11,955 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"

  6. People v. Hawkins

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9254 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 1,875 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

  7. People v. Gray

    86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 3,227 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

  8. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,682 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"

  9. People v. Malizia

    62 N.Y.2d 755 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 857 times
    In People v. Malizia, 62 NY2d 755 [1984], the Court of Appeals held that the evidentiary rulings of a first trial did not automatically apply to a second trial (see People v. Nieves, 67 NY 125 [1986]).

  10. People v. Kello

    96 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 191 times
    Holding that hearsay objection alone was insufficient to preserve Confrontation Clause objection