People v. Jack, 541 N.E.2d 410 (NY 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Jack, 541 N.E.2d 410 (NY 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases · …reasonable doubt concerning defendant's at p. 709 ✓
14 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Elias (Bishoy)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · confidence medium
Thus, there was no "reasonable doubt concerning defendant's" whereabouts at the time of the incident ( People v Jack , 74 NY2d 708, 709 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Elias (Bishoy) (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · confidence medium
Thus, there was no "reasonable doubt concerning defendant's" whereabouts at the time of the incident ( People v Jack , 74 NY2d 708, 709 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McCormick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The defendant correctly contends that the evidence was legally sufficient to support an alibi defense and, thus, the Supreme Court improperly denied his application for an alibi charge (see People v Warren, 76 NY2d 773, 775 [1990]; People v Jack, 74 NY2d 708, 709 [1989]; People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 820 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McCormick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The defendant correctly contends that the evidence was legally sufficient to support an alibi defense and, thus, the Supreme Court improperly denied his application for an alibi charge (see People v Warren, 76 NY2d 773, 775 [1990]; People v Jack, 74 NY2d 708, 709 [1989]; People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 820 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Green
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
It must only be sufficient, if believed and considered with all the other evidence in the case, to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was or could have been present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (see People v Jack, 74 NY2d 708, 709 [1989]; People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 821 [1986]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
Even “[i]f under the evidence tending, if true, to prove an alibi, it may have been possible for the defendant to have committed the crime, it is still for the jury to determine whether, if the evidence is true, he availed himself of the possibility it afforded” (People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 821 [1986] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Jack, 74 NY2d 708 [1989]; People v Costales, 87 AD2d 635 [1982]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Cruz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
While the daughter’s testimony, if credited, would not have rendered the prosecution scenario impossible, it would have rendered that scenario unlikely, supported defendant’s defense, and corroborated his testimony (see People v Cuevas, 67 AD2d 219, 223-225 [1979]; see also People v Jack, 74 NY2d 708 [1989]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Warren
N.Y. App. Div. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Contrary to the trial court’s holding, I find that since the gist of the defendant’s testimony was that he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, and that therefore, someone else committed the crime, he was entitled to an alibi charge (see, People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819 ; see also, People v Jack, 74 NY2d 708 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Gregory Jack, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 15, 1989.
541 N.E.2d 410
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney (Karen L. Mallory of counsel), for appellant., Robert S. Dean and Philip L. Weinstein for respondent.
Wacther and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa Concur.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We agree with the Appellate Division that it was error for the trial court to refuse counsel’s request that it instruct ’the jury on alibi. The alibi testimony of defendant and his sister did not have to establish that it would have been impossible for the defendant to have committed the crime and need not have covered the whole time of the transaction in question (see, People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 820-821 [quoting People v Barbato, 254 NY 170, 178-179]). Rather, the evidence simply had to raise a reasonable doubt concerning defendant’s presence in the stairwell of the apartment building, as opposed to his sister’s apartment within that building, when the drugs were allegedly sold (see, People v Holt, supra, at 821; People v Barbato, supra, at 178-179; People v Elmore, 277 NY 397, 405-406). Inasmuch as the alibi testimony, when viewed together with all the other evidence, could have created a reasonable doubt, a jury instruction on this defense was warranted and the failure to give it was not harmless error (see, People v Holt, supra, at 821; People v La Chance, 39 NY2d 892; see also, People v Barbato, supra, at 178-179).

[*710] Chief Judge Wacther and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.