A quarter of a century ago, the New York Court of Appeals ushered in the “modern era” of weight-of-the-evidence review. In People v. Bleakley,1 it refined the standard of review, articulated a two-step approach, and reminded intermediate appellate courts that they had the authority and, indeed the responsibility, to apply a weight-of-the-evidence analysis when the issue is raised on appeal. A recent appellate decision has now found, for only the second time since Bleakley, that it was against the weight of evidence for a jury to reject the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance.2
Intermediate appellate courts are empowered by both the New York State Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law to review questions of law and fact. However, the two standards of review, legal sufficiency and weight of evidence, while related, require different analyses.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
