§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.Carlos Palencia, Respondent.

Brief

14 Cited authorities

  1. Leary v. United States

    395 U.S. 6 (1969)   Cited 1,287 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding the same with respect to conviction of a natural-person taxpayer for violating a marijuana tax law that obligated the taxpayer to file a written order form with the IRS detailing the amount of marijuana received

  2. Turner v. United States

    396 U.S. 398 (1970)   Cited 901 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where an indictment charges knowingly purchasing, dispensing, and distributing heroin, the conviction would have to be sustained if there was sufficient evidence of distribution alone

  3. Tot v. United States

    319 U.S. 463 (1943)   Cited 734 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a presumption that a person obtained a gun through interstate commerce based on proof of past convictions to be unreasonable

  4. People v. Thomas

    46 N.Y.2d 100 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 216 times
    Applying the same rule to evidence of personal hostility by a witness

  5. People v. Mertz

    68 N.Y.2d 136 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 166 times
    Concluding that under per se statute, proof of BAC of .10% or more within two hours after arrest establishes prima facie evidence of driving under the influence which together with other evidence of intoxication is sufficient to sustain a conviction, absent evidence from which the trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was under .10% at the time of driving such as expert testimony

  6. People v. McCaleb

    25 N.Y.2d 394 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that section 165.01's presumption satisfies due process, reasoning: “[t]here is a ‘fair', ‘natural' and ‘rational' connection between the fact that a car is being used without permission of its owner, and the presumption that those in the car, driver and passengers alike, are aware they do not have permission. The likelihood of innocent use or occupation of a ‘stolen' vehicle is minimal, and in the rare instance could be easily explained, presenting no more than a light burden of going forward to make such explanation.... In that event a heavy burden will have been placed on the prosecution to negative this rebuttal of the presumption, in order to sustain conviction based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt ....But the unexplained use or presence in a stolen vehicle has a ‘sinister significance' sufficient to justify the presumption that the unauthorized use is with knowledge.”

  7. People v. Kirkpatrick

    32 N.Y.2d 17 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 62 times
    In Kirkpatrick, as was the case here, the trial court's "fail [ure]" (People v. Kirkpatrick, 32 NY2d at 21) to grant a midtrial dismissal motion resulted from a reservation of decision (see id.).

  8. People v. Aliaj

    36 Misc. 3d 682 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Summarizing factors raised by many trial courts

  9. People v. Leontiev

    38 Misc. 3d 716 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    2012-12-12 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Natalie LEONTIEV, Defendant. Kathleen Rice, Nassau County, District Attorney. Steven F. Christiansen, PLLC, attorney for Defendant. ANDREW M. ENGEL Kathleen Rice, Nassau County, District Attorney. Steven F. Christiansen, PLLC, attorney for Defendant. ANDREW M. ENGEL, J. The Defendant is charged with two counts of driving while intoxicated, aggravated driving while intoxicated, two counts of reckless driving, refusing to take a breath test, leaving

  10. People v. Schook

    16 Misc. 3d 1113 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    No. 2006SU17659. July 16, 2007. Alamia, J. Crimes-Right to Remain Silent. Criminal Procedure Law — § 140.10 (1) (Arrest without warrant; by police officer; when and where authorized).