green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: People v. Glover ↗
Issue: first prong testNY ↗
Issue: Glover testNY ↗
Issue: weight requirementNY ↗
Issue: two-tier testNY ↗
38.4 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2009–2023 ·
…in determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to defendant
at p. 705
✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2019–2021 · 3 courts ·
…in determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant
at p. 705
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mitchell
"In assessing whether there is a 'reasonable view of the evidence,' the proof must be looked at 'in the light most favorable to [the] defendant' " ( People v Rivera , 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], quoting People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wilson
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant ( see People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is a reasonable view of the evidence that defendant merely attempted to cause physical injury to the victim without use of a dangerous instrument to cause that injury ( see e.g.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wilson
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant ( see People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is a reasonable view of the evidence that defendant merely attempted to cause physical injury to the victim without use of a dangerous instrument to cause that injury ( see e.g.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cotto
"In determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to defendant" ( People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983] [citation omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Tohafijian
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant ( see People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), we conclude that there is no reasonable view thereof to support a finding that defendant [*2]committed the lesser offense but not the greater ( see generally CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Glover , 57 NY2d 61, 63-64 [1982]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bubis
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant ( see People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), we conclude that there is no reasonable view thereof to support a finding that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater ( see generally People v Glover , 57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cooper
"In determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to [the] defendant" ( People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983] [citation omitted]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Allen
However, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 238 [1975]; cf. People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Allen
However, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 238 [1975]; cf. People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Emmanuel Almonte
Although “[i]n determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to [the] defendant” (People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), charging the lesser included offense here “would [have] force[d] the jury to resort to sheer speculation” (People v Discala, 45 NY2d 38, 43 [1978] [citations omitted]; see Rivera, 23 NY3d at 121 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McIntosh
"In assessing whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence,' the proof must be looked at in the light most favorable to [the] defendant' " ( Rivera , 23 NY3d at 120-121 , quoting People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lavalley
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to defendant ( see People v Rivera , 23 NY3d at 120-121 ; People v Martin , 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), the jury could have reasonably found that defendant did not disregard, but instead failed to perceive, an unjustifiable risk of injury to the victim when he opened fire without sufficient observation ( see People v Penrose , 146 AD2d 947, 947-948 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 850 [1989]; People v Williams , 70 AD2d 957 , 957 [1979], affd 50 NY2d 1043 [1980]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cuatlal
“In determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to defendant” (People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Minckler
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that defendant was guilty of criminal trespass, and not burglary in the second degree (see id.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Minckler
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that defendant was guilty of criminal trespass, and not burglary in the second degree (see id.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Minckler
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that defendant was guilty of criminal trespass, and not burglary in the second degree (see id.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Knox
Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that, as to count 2 of the indictment, the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offense (see generally CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Grayson
In evaluating whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that a defendant committed only the lesser offense, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014]; People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Green, 56 NY2d 427, 434 [1982]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Prince
There is no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014]; People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), which would support a finding that the defendant acted with criminal negligence (see People v Hill, 266 AD2d 473, 474 [1999]; People v Stephens, 198 AD2d 245 , 245-246 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 990 [1994]; People v Duncan, 55 AD2d 690, 690 [1976]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Elian
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), we conclude that there is no reasonable view thereof to support a finding that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see generally People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Elian
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), we conclude that there is no reasonable view thereof to support a finding that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see generally People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bruno
Here, there is no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), that would support a finding that the defendant acted with criminal negligence (see People v Cameron, 244 AD2d 350, 351 [1997]; People v Lucas, 238 AD2d 524, 525 [1997]; People v Williams, 192 AD2d 737, 738 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lowery
Here, upon reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Jeffers, 278 AD2d 430 [2000]), we conclude that there was a reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that the defendant was guilty of the lesser offense, but not the greater.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Verni
Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was a reasonable view of the evidence that could have supported an inference that the defendant shot himself in his home or place of business prior to entering his automobile, and that he therefore may have been guilty of the lesser crime but not the greater (see CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]; People v Borges, 90 AD3d 1067, 1069 [2011]; People v Brockett, 74 AD3d 1218, 1220 [2010] ; People v Bethea, 24 AD3d 685 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Powell
Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is no reasonable view of the evidence which would support findings that the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offenses (see generally CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hull
(4×)
As a result, the question is whether there was any reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim rather than to kill him (see CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Scott
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Scott
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Roseborough
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), we further conclude that County Court (DeMarco, J.), properly denied defendant’s request to charge criminal trespass in the third degree as a lesser included offense (Penal Law § 140.10).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Roseborough
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), we further conclude that County Court (DeMarco, J.), properly denied defendant’s request to charge criminal trespass in the third degree as a lesser included offense (Penal Law § 140.10).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bennett
Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that merely an attempt and not the completed crime had occurred (see People v Wells, 18 AD3d 482, 483 [2005]; see also People v Kenny, 101 AD3d 750, 751 [2012]; cf. People v Alford, 276 AD2d 797 [2000]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bennett
Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that merely an attempt and not the completed crime had occurred (see People v Wells, 18 AD3d 482, 483 [2005]; see also People v Kenny, 101 AD3d 750, 751 [2012]; cf. People v Alford, 276 AD2d 797 [2000]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rivera
(2×)
Second, the party making the request for a charge-down “must then show that there is a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that [the defendant] committed the lesser included offense but not the greater” (People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]; CPL 300.50 [1]). 6 In assessing whether there is a “reasonable view of the evidence,” the proof must be looked at “in the light most favorable to [the] defendant” (People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), which requires awareness of “the jury’s right to accept some part of the evidence pre…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rivera
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), we find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the defendant acted recklessly when he stabbed the victim (see People v Pizarro, 89 AD3d 871 [2011]; People v Lopez, 72 AD3d 593, 593-594 [2010]; People v Barnes, 265 AD2d 169 [1999]; People v Porter, 161 AD2d 811 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rivera
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), we find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the defendant acted recklessly when he stabbed the victim (see People v Pizarro, 89 AD3d 871 [2011]; People v Lopez, 72 AD3d 593, 593-594 [2010]; People v Barnes, 265 AD2d 169 [1999]; People v Porter, 161 AD2d 811 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. DeCampoamor
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the victims rather than to kill them (see People v Moreno, 16 AD3d 438 [2005]; People v Kelly, 221 AD2d 661 , 662 [1995], cert denied 517 US 1200 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Green
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim, rather than to kill her (see People v Moreno, 16 AD3d 438 [2005]; People v Maldonado, 5 AD3d 505, 506 [2004]; People v DeLucia, 302 AD2d 280 [2003]; People v Wheeler, 257 AD2d 673 [1999]; People v Kelly, 221 AD2d 661 [1995], cert denied 517 US 1200 [1996]; People v Green, 143 AD2d 768, 770 [1988]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. March
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Albanna, 23 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2005]), there is no reasonable view thereof to support a finding that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see generally Glover, 57 NY2d at 63 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Perry
Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233 , 236 [1976]), there was a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant may have been guilty of the lesser crime and not the greater (see People v Rivera, 15 NY3d 844 [2010], revg 72 AD3d 576 [2010]; People v Chatman, 122 AD2d 148, 149 [1986]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Roberts
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233 , 236 [1976]), we find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim rather than to kill him (see People v Sostre, 70 AD3d 865 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]; People v Seabrooks, 27 AD3d 494 [2006]; People v Kelly, 221 AD2d 661 [1995], cert denied 517 US 1200 [1996]; People v Holmes, 196 AD2d 555 [1993], cert denied 510 US 1128 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brockett
Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant may have been guilty of the lesser crime and not the greater (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Green, 56 NY2d 427 [1982]; People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233 , 236 [1976]; People v Lee, 35 NY2d 826 [1974]; People v Brantley, 209 AD2d 272 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bryant
There was a reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, that the defendant may have been guilty of the lesser crime and not the greater (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Green, 56 NY2d 427 [1982]; People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233, 236 [1976]; People u Stevens, 186 AD2d 832 [1992]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rivera
Lind v New York, 506 US 1011 [1992]; People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 706 [1983]; People v Bayard, 32 AD3d 328, 330 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ellis
In any event, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is no reasonable view of the evidence that supports the conclusion that the defendant committed either of the lesser offenses but not the greater (see People v Monroe, 30 AD3d 616, 617-618 [2006]; People v Rodriguez, 295 AD2d at 544, 545 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Sostre
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233 , 236 [1976]), we find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to Chase rather than kill him (see People v Seabrooks, 27 AD3d 494 [2006]; People v Kelly, 221 AD2d 661 , 662 [1995], cert denied 517 US 1200 [1996]; People v Dennis, 208 AD2d at 946 ; People v Holmes, 196 AD2d 555 [1993]; People v Rielly, 190 AD2d at 697 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fernandez
“In determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to defendant” (People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thorne
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), no reasonable view of the evidence supported a finding that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see CPL 300.50 [1]; cf. Penal Law § 165.45 [2]; People v Powers, 262 AD2d 713, 717 [1999]; People v Peterson, 216 AD2d 10 [1995]; People v Johnson, 214 AD2d 478 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Moore
A defendant is not entitled to the submission of a lesser-included offense (see CPL 1.20 [37]) unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which the jury could conclude that the defendant committed the lesser offense, but not the greater (see People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]; People v Figueroa, 57 AD3d 1003 [2008]; People v Mendez, 51 AD3d 948, 949 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Figueroa
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him (see People v Randolph, 81 NY2d 868, 869 [1993]; People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), no reasonable view of the evidence supported a finding that the injury he caused was anything less than a serious physical injury (see People v Vasquez, 25 AD3d 465, 466 [2006]; Penal Law § 10.00 [9], [10]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Williams
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Alvarez, 51 AD3d 167, 181 [2008]), we conclude that it does not support a finding that defendant “failed to perceive [the] substantial and unjustifiable risk” of physical injury to the victim when he chased her and swung at her head with the butt of a long gun (see People v Arzu, 240 AD2d 217, 217 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 938 [1997]; People v Maybee, 148 AD2d 923 [1989]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Dennis Martin, Respondent
v.
Dennis Martin, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
May 5, 1983.
450 N.E.2d 225
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Michael Kavanagh, District Attorney (.Marsha Solomon of counsel), for appellant., Robert D. Cook for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons Concur.
Cited by 183 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Shortly after midnight on December 18, 1979, police arrested defendant as he fled from an auto supply store. He was charged with burglary in the third degree. At trial, the court denied defense counsel’s request that the jury be charged on the lesser included offense of criminal trespass in the third degree. The jury found defendant guilty of burglary. The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial. Although the Appellate Division order stated that the reversal was based on the law and the facts, examination of that court’s decision indicates that the determination was based on the law alone.
Trespass in the third degree is a lesser included offense of burglary in the third degree (see People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233, 235). Thus, the trespass count should have been charged if, under any reasonable view of the evidence, a jury could find that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see CPL 300.50, subds 1, 2; see, also, People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364; People v Johnson, 45 NY2d 546). In determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Shuman, 37 NY2d 302).
Defendant testified that he had been drinking steadily during the 12 hours before his arrest and did not remember being at the auto supply store. Several other defense wit[*706] nesses testified to defendant’s intoxicated condition on the evening before his arrest and immediately after his arrest. The jury could have found that defendant knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in the building — and thereby committed trespass in the third degree — while also concluding that defendant was too drunk to form the specific intent to commit a crime in the building, a prerequisite to a conviction for burglary. Therefore, it was error to have refused to submit the lesser included offense, along with the greater crime, to the jury.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.