People v. Danielson
- Decided
- December 13, 2007
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- New York
Cited 13,222 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- explaining the difference between legal insufficiency and weight of the evidence claims and stating that “[a] legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence” — Chase v. LaManna (2024)
- discussing state-law basis for right to weight of the evidence review — Cross v. McCarthy (2023)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION OF THE COURT Chief Judge Kaye.
These two appeals call upon us to determine the scope of weight of the evidence review when a defendant has failed to preserve a challenge to the legal sufficiency of his conviction. In particular, we are asked whether weight of the evidence review requires assessment of the elements of the crime for which defendant is convicted, or whether such review would simply be tantamount to back-door sufficiency review.
Facts In the first of the two appeals, People v Danielson, the People presented evidence at trial that defendant, together with fellow gang members Gerard Miller and Omari Green, plotted to kill Kenneth Andrews for “false flagging”—wearing a rival gang’s bandana. The three arranged to take Andrews to a secluded area in Seton Falls Park in the Bronx to murder him.
Cite this
People v. Danielson, 880 N.E.2d 1 (2007)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.