33 Cited authorities

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,556 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
State v. Danielson
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9814 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 9,447 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"
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"
People v. Steinberg
79 N.Y.2d 673 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 351 times
Holding that "jury could have inferred from the evidence that defendant’s objective in assaulting Lisa and failing to summon medical assistance was to cause serious physical injury"
People v. Bracey
41 N.Y.2d 296 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 560 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that the case "poses an unusual problem . . . [because in] most attempt cases, the defendant's actual intent or purpose is not in issue and the only questions are whether he committed an overt act that went beyond the stage of mere preparation"
People v. Kennedy
47 N.Y.2d 196 (N.Y. 1979) Cited 361 times
Noting that “cases involving circumstantial evidence must be closely reviewed because they often require the jury to undertake a more complex and problematical reasoning process than do cases based on direct evidence”
People v. Pena
50 N.Y.2d 400 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 312 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Pena, this Court concluded that the defendant was not punished by the imposition of the lawful, but greater, sentence received after rejecting a lenient plea offer and proceeding to trial.
People v. Barboni
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4269 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 112 times
Rejecting claim that a period of hours was not a course of conduct
People v. Mackey
49 N.Y.2d 274 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 216 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating "unless there is read into the words `a crime' more than the Legislature has stated, intent to commit a specific crime is not an element, and the necessity for particulars, and with it the due process question, disappears"
People v. Calabria
3 N.Y.3d 80 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 91 times
Holding that where the testimony of a single eyewitness is without conflicts and found to be credible and reliable, such testimony is sufficient to support a criminal conviction

The People, Respondent,v.Jafari Lamont, Appellant.

33 Cited authorities

Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"

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"

Holding that "jury could have inferred from the evidence that defendant’s objective in assaulting Lisa and failing to summon medical assistance was to cause serious physical injury"

Noting that the case "poses an unusual problem . . . [because in] most attempt cases, the defendant's actual intent or purpose is not in issue and the only questions are whether he committed an overt act that went beyond the stage of mere preparation"

Noting that “cases involving circumstantial evidence must be closely reviewed because they often require the jury to undertake a more complex and problematical reasoning process than do cases based on direct evidence”

In Pena, this Court concluded that the defendant was not punished by the imposition of the lawful, but greater, sentence received after rejecting a lenient plea offer and proceeding to trial.

Rejecting claim that a period of hours was not a course of conduct

Stating "unless there is read into the words `a crime' more than the Legislature has stated, intent to commit a specific crime is not an element, and the necessity for particulars, and with it the due process question, disappears"

Holding that where the testimony of a single eyewitness is without conflicts and found to be credible and reliable, such testimony is sufficient to support a criminal conviction