People v. Graham
| Decision Date | 25 April 1978 |
| Citation | People v. Graham, 406 N.Y.S.2d 36, 44 N.Y.2d 768 (N.Y. 1978) |
| Parties | , 377 N.E.2d 480 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. William GRAHAM, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Order affirmed on the opinion of Mr. Justice G. Robert Witmer at the Appellate Division (57 A.D.2d 478, 394 N.Y.S.2d 982).
All concur.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
14 cases
-
People v. Potenza
...13 N.Y.2d 97, 101 [242 N.Y.S.2d 200, 192 N.E.2d 160] )" (People v. Graham, 57 A.D.2d 478, 482, 394 N.Y.S.2d 982, affd. 44 N.Y.2d 768, 406 N.Y.S.2d 36, 377 N.E.2d 480). The evidence, we find, meets this There is little difference between the testimony of Mancuso and defendant with respect to......
-
People v. Ludolph
...with respect to the former, a 'lesser included offense.' " In People v. Graham, 57 A.D.2d 478, 394 N.Y.S.2d 982, aff'd 44 N.Y.2d 768, 406 N.Y.S.2d 36, 377 N.E.2d 480, decided April 25, 1978, Justice Witmer summarized the principles applicable to a determination of whether an offense is a "l......
-
People v. Green
...or fact not required by the greater, the impossibility test has not been met and the charge should not be given (People v. Graham, 44 N.Y.2d 768, 406 N.Y.S.2d 36, 377 N.E.2d 480 People v. Acevedo, 40 N.Y.2d 701, 389 N.Y.S.2d 811, 358 N.E.2d 495 see, also, People v. Ramirez, 55 N.Y.2d 708, 4......
-
People v. Hankin
... ... If there is a payment after the fact, without any prior agreement or understanding, it may constitute the lesser crimes of giving or receiving an unlawful gratuity, but not bribery. See, Penal Law §§ 215.00, 200.30 and 200.35. See also, People v. Graham, 57 A.D.2d 478, 394 N.Y.S.2d 982 (4th Dept.1977), aff'd, 44 N.Y.2d 768, 406 N.Y.S.2d 36, 377 N.E.2d 480 (1978), and People v. Hendy, 64 A.D.2d 407, 409 N.Y.S.2d 736 (1st Dept.1978). Likewise, even if a benefit is conferred upon a witness, but it is not based upon a prior or concurrent agreement or ... ...
Get Started for Free