Legal Opinion
People v. Ju Ju Jiang
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 3, 2012PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant’s contention that the evidence presented as to the sixth count of the indictment, charging him with attempted grand larceny in the third degree, was legally insufficient to prove that the value of the stolen property exceeded $3,000, was not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). However, we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Oates, 33 AD3d 823, 823 [2006]; People v Jackman, 8 AD3d 678, 678-679 [2004]).
As the Feople correctly concede, the evidence was legally insufficient…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. HawkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- People v. BludsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- People v. SeymourAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. OatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- People v. HarvinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. McFaddenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. McFaddenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. NicholasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. NicholasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013