59 Cited authorities

Patterson v. New York
432 U.S. 197 (1977) Cited 2,356 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process does not create “a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.”
Lockhart v. McCree
476 U.S. 162 (1986) Cited 1,414 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that fair cross-section requirement applies to jury pool not petit jury
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
People v. Gray
86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 3,231 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,689 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. Casey
95 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 1,347 times
Finding nonhearsay allegations including the complainant's supporting deposition, which stated that the order had been issued, was in effect, and that she had personally observed the defendant engage in conduct that violated the order could help to cure an alleged defect in the instrument premised on the failure to provide the underlying court order
People v. Antommarchi
80 N.Y.2d 247 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 541 times
Recognizing a defendant's right to be present at sidebar conferences during jury selection
People v. Rosen
96 N.Y.2d 329 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 342 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no constitutional right to jury trial to establish facts of prior conviction
Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States
371 U.S. 341 (1963) Cited 309 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because the defendants did not explain why they failed to raise their objections on time, and because the defendants did not point to any prejudice from not litigating their objections, the trial court properly held that their objections were waived under rule 12
People v. Morris
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6633 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 174 times
Holding that evidence of a 911 call accusing defendant of robbing someone at gunpoint was relevant background information that helped explain the aggressive conduct of police when arresting the defendant
Section 128.6-a - Postponement and excusal from jury service
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 128.6-a Cited 5 times
Granting the commissioner of jurors the discretion to excuse prospective jurors from service and to grant postponements

The People, Respondent,v.Ronnell Jordan, Appellant.

59 Cited authorities

Holding that due process does not create “a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.”

Holding that fair cross-section requirement applies to jury pool not petit jury

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 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"

Recognizing a defendant's right to be present at sidebar conferences during jury selection

Finding no constitutional right to jury trial to establish facts of prior conviction

Holding that, because the defendants did not explain why they failed to raise their objections on time, and because the defendants did not point to any prejudice from not litigating their objections, the trial court properly held that their objections were waived under rule 12

Holding that evidence of a 911 call accusing defendant of robbing someone at gunpoint was relevant background information that helped explain the aggressive conduct of police when arresting the defendant

Granting the commissioner of jurors the discretion to excuse prospective jurors from service and to grant postponements