47 Cited authorities

People v. Bleakley
69 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 11,295 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. Mateo
2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 3,446 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. 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 3,228 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 5,685 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. Rosario
9 N.Y.2d 286 (N.Y. 1961) Cited 1,651 times
Holding that trial court erred by failing to compel prosecution to turn over witnesses' prior statements relating to their trial testimony
People v. Delamota
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8225 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 285 times 1 Legal Analyses
Expressing skepticism about lineup procedures because, among other concerns, family member with prior exposure to perpetrator had to translate for witness
People v. Concepcion
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5110 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 224 times
Noting that New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 470.15 bars the Appellate Division "from affirming a judgment, sentence or order on a ground not decided adversely to the appellant by the trial court"
People v. Martinez
71 N.Y.2d 937 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 372 times
Authorizing appropriate sanctions for the failure to preserve witness statements
People v. Ford
66 N.Y.2d 428 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 352 times
Retaining the charge because it emphasizes the need for careful reasoning and "forecloses danger . . . that the trier of facts may leap logical gaps in the proof offered and draw unwarranted conclusion based on probabilities of low degree"

The People, Respondent,v.Selbin Martinez, Appellant.

47 Cited authorities

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"

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 . . ."

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"

Holding that trial court erred by failing to compel prosecution to turn over witnesses' prior statements relating to their trial testimony

Expressing skepticism about lineup procedures because, among other concerns, family member with prior exposure to perpetrator had to translate for witness

Noting that New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 470.15 bars the Appellate Division "from affirming a judgment, sentence or order on a ground not decided adversely to the appellant by the trial court"

Authorizing appropriate sanctions for the failure to preserve witness statements

Retaining the charge because it emphasizes the need for careful reasoning and "forecloses danger . . . that the trier of facts may leap logical gaps in the proof offered and draw unwarranted conclusion based on probabilities of low degree"