18 Cited authorities

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,625 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"
People v. Bleakley
69 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 11,296 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"
People v. Contes
60 N.Y.2d 620 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 11,958 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. Mateo
2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 3,447 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding criminal liability attaches to "a person concerned in the commission of a crime whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission . . ."
People v. Mahboubian
74 N.Y.2d 174 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 557 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding prejudice where defendants's defenses "were not only antagonistic but also mutually exclusive and irreconcilable" and "[t]he jury could not have credited both defenses"
People v. Bracey
41 N.Y.2d 296 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 561 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. 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
People v. Reed
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 899 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 53 times
2014-02-13 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lance J. REED, Appellant. Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford (Svetlana K. Ivy of counsel), and Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Drew R. DuBrin of counsel), for appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of counsel), for respondent. PIGOTT Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford (Svetlana K. Ivy of counsel), and Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Drew R. DuBrin of counsel), for appellant.Sandra
People v. Naradzay
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9249 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 54 times
Holding a "rational jury could conclude that defendant crossed the boundary where preparation ripens into punishable conduct, a determination that depends greatly on the facts of the particular case"
People v. Wong
81 N.Y.2d 600 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 71 times
Reversing couple's manslaughter convictions on theories of both commission and omission for insufficient evidence relating to shaken-baby-syndrome death of infant in their care, although citing Steinberg in acknowledging "theoretical" possibility of establishing guilt by omission

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

18 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 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"

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"

Finding criminal liability attaches to "a person concerned in the commission of a crime whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission . . ."

Finding prejudice where defendants's defenses "were not only antagonistic but also mutually exclusive and irreconcilable" and "[t]he jury could not have credited both defenses"

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"

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

Holding a "rational jury could conclude that defendant crossed the boundary where preparation ripens into punishable conduct, a determination that depends greatly on the facts of the particular case"

Reversing couple's manslaughter convictions on theories of both commission and omission for insufficient evidence relating to shaken-baby-syndrome death of infant in their care, although citing Steinberg in acknowledging "theoretical" possibility of establishing guilt by omission