28 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"
Minnesota v. Olson
495 U.S. 91 (1990) Cited 2,006 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that overnight guests in the homes of a third person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those premises
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. Gray
86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 3,227 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
People v. Hines
97 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 710 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that in a post-verdict CPL § 330.30 motion, "an insufficiency argument may not be addressed unless it has been properly reserved for review during the trial"
Pulka v. Edelman
40 N.Y.2d 781 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 924 times
Holding that parking garage owner had no special relationship to pedestrians passing by on sidewalk in front of garage exit and that garage had no duty to protect off-premise pedestrians from negligent conduct of patrons
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. 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"
Matter of Yolanda D
88 N.Y.2d 790 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 178 times
Discussing N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1012
People v. Ford
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9856 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 58 times
In Ford, the trial court explained that to find the defendant guilty of first-degree robbery, the jury would have to find, in pertinent part, that "the defendant used or threatened the immediate use of a knife; [and] third, that under the circumstances the knife was a dangerous instrument."

The People, Respondent,v.Anthony Berry, Appellant.

28 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 overnight guests in the homes of a third person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those premises

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 the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

Holding that in a post-verdict CPL § 330.30 motion, "an insufficiency argument may not be addressed unless it has been properly reserved for review during the trial"

Holding that parking garage owner had no special relationship to pedestrians passing by on sidewalk in front of garage exit and that garage had no duty to protect off-premise pedestrians from negligent conduct of patrons

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

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"

Discussing N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1012

In Ford, the trial court explained that to find the defendant guilty of first-degree robbery, the jury would have to find, in pertinent part, that "the defendant used or threatened the immediate use of a knife; [and] third, that under the circumstances the knife was a dangerous instrument."