Legal Opinion

People v. Miaram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 5, 2012PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The defendant’s contention that the conviction of robbery in the first degree under count 16 of the indictment is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. People v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. People v. DanielsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2007

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. ArroyoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  2. People v. DiazAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
  3. People v. DiazAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API