People v. Nehma
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Mercure, J.P.
Initially, we reject defendant’s argument that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Inasmuch as an acquittal would not have been unreasonable, we “must weigh [the] conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such *1171conclusions” in light of the elements of the crime (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]). In our view, the evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that defendant intended and came dangerously close to engaging in forcible sexual…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- People v. DanielsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- People v. RomeroNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- People v. ChappleNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. PaulmanNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- People v. DormNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. KulkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. AckermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. RizviAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. AllenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. AbdullahAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.