115 Cited authorities

Bourjaily v. United States
483 U.S. 171 (1987) Cited 2,728 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that trial judge may consider any evidence whatsoever, including the proffered hearsay statements, in determining whether statements are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule
Huddleston v. United States
485 U.S. 681 (1988) Cited 2,347 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that under Rule 104(b), the "court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact . . . by a preponderance of the evidence"
United States v. Powell
469 U.S. 57 (1984) Cited 2,042 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant can be convicted of telephone facilitation despite an acquittal on the predicate felony
Lego v. Twomey
404 U.S. 477 (1972) Cited 1,875 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the prosecution must prove at least by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary," but observing that "the States are free, pursuant to their own law, to adopt a higher standard"
Johnson v. Zerbst
304 U.S. 458 (1938) Cited 8,796 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent
People v. Hawkins
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9254 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 1,876 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
People v. Gray
86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 3,228 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
Texas v. Cobb
532 U.S. 162 (2001) Cited 580 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's statements regarding uncharged offenses, without his attorney present, were admissible notwithstanding his right to counsel on other charged offenses
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,684 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"
People v. Alvino
71 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 1,068 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence of similar uncharged crimes is excluded for policy reasons because it may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters

The People, Respondent,v.Chris Price, Appellant.

115 Cited authorities

Holding that trial judge may consider any evidence whatsoever, including the proffered hearsay statements, in determining whether statements are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule

Holding that under Rule 104(b), the "court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact . . . by a preponderance of the evidence"

Holding that a defendant can be convicted of telephone facilitation despite an acquittal on the predicate felony

Holding that "the prosecution must prove at least by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary," but observing that "the States are free, pursuant to their own law, to adopt a higher standard"

Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent

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

Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

Holding that a defendant's statements regarding uncharged offenses, without his attorney present, were admissible notwithstanding his right to counsel on other charged offenses

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"

Holding that evidence of similar uncharged crimes is excluded for policy reasons because it may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters