CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1982

People v. Nieto

This case involves an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, convicting him of robbery in the second degree. The core issue on appeal was whether the People presented sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of two accomplices, Anastasio Santiago and Julio Perez, who planned and executed the robbery with the defendant. The defendant allegedly informed the accomplices about the victim's valuable jewelry and suggested a time for the robbery. The court found that the evidence relied upon by the People, including the defendant's presence at the job site, association with accomplices, a statement about the robbery time, the victim's phone call testimony, and a police detective's rebuttal testimony, did not satisfy the statutory requirements for independent corroboration under CPL 60.22. The corroborative evidence, at best, only supported the accomplices' credibility but failed to connect the defendant with the crime. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the indictment was dismissed.

Accomplice TestimonyCorroboration EvidenceRobbery Second DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceIndictment DismissedAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure LawImpeachment EvidenceIndependent CorroborationWitness Credibility
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Amell

County Court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. The appellate court disagreed, finding the accomplice testimony was amply corroborated by independent evidence. This evidence included the defendant's statements indicative of consciousness of guilt, his admission of being with the accomplice during the burglary, confirmation by the accomplice’s wife, and a co-worker's testimony about the defendant's pre-burglary inquiries and post-arrest threats. Consequently, the order dismissing the indictment was reversed, the motion denied, the indictment reinstated, and the matter remitted to Jefferson County Court for further proceedings.

BurglaryAccomplice TestimonyCorroborationGrand JuryIndictmentCriminal ProcedureAppellate ReversalConsciousness of GuiltRemittalLegal Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. State

Celeste Beard Johnson was found guilty of capital murder and injury to an elderly individual concerning the death of her husband, Steven Beard. The case involved the testimony of accomplice Tracey Tarlton, who shot Beard, with corroborating evidence indicating Johnson's financial motive and active participation in planning the murder. Beard's death, months after the shooting, was attributed to complications from the gunshot wound, a conclusion supported by medical examiner testimony over defense expert opinions. The appellate court addressed numerous points of error, including sufficiency of evidence regarding accomplice testimony corroboration, cause of death, and remuneration, as well as challenges to indictment amendments, relevancy of evidence, confrontation rights, and the admission of a civil deposition and telephone record summaries. Ultimately, all points of error, including a double jeopardy claim, were overruled, and the judgments of conviction were affirmed.

Capital MurderInjury to ElderlyAccomplice TestimonyEvidence SufficiencyIndictment AmendmentRemunerationHearsayConfrontation RightsDouble JeopardyMedical Causation
References
39
Case No. 08-01-00373-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2003

Reister, Roger v. State

Roger Reister was convicted of four counts of criminal solicitation of capital murder for the death of his wife, Lynn Armstrong Reister, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated. The court reviewed extensive non-accomplice testimony, evidence of Reister's marital problems, an affair, and his financial motives, concluding that the combined evidence sufficiently connected him to the crime. The court also addressed and overruled several points of error regarding character evidence, crime scene photographs, admission of the autopsy report, and jury instructions on remuneration and reasonable doubt. The conviction was affirmed.

Criminal SolicitationCapital MurderSpousal MurderLife InsuranceAdulteryAccomplice TestimonyCorroborationEvidentiary ErrorRemunerationJury Charge
References
65
Case No. 106274
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

PeoplevRodriguez

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the judgment convicting Jose A. Rodriguez of operating as a major trafficker and four counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Rodriguez appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, particularly regarding the corroboration of accomplice testimony, and an excessive sentence. The Court found adequate corroboration for accomplice testimony connecting Rodriguez to the drug operation through police investigations and controlled buys. It also dismissed his claims concerning geographical jurisdiction and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient and the verdict was in line with the weight of the evidence, and determined that the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive, citing the serious nature of the crimes and Rodriguez's criminal history.

Criminal LawDrug TraffickingControlled SubstancesAccomplice TestimonyEvidence CorroborationAppellate ReviewSentence AppealPenal LawNew York LawDrug Law Reform Act
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Graham

Defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree, stemming from incidents at the Albany County Airport on March 8, 1984. The complainant alleged that after meeting the defendant for a drug transaction, he raped and sodomized her at knifepoint in his car, with his brother-in-law present. She initially provided false details to police to conceal her intent to purchase drugs but later corrected her statement, which was corroborated by the brother-in-law who received immunity. The defendant denied any involvement, claiming only a casual acquaintance. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's refusal to provide the complainant's psychiatric history, alleged insufficient corroboration for the accomplice's testimony, claimed denial of exculpatory material, cited juror misconduct, and argued against the admission of certain witness testimony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the psychiatric records, sufficient corroboration, that any exculpatory evidence would not have altered the verdict, and that the trial court correctly denied a mistrial. Additionally, the court found the admission of certain testimony to be harmless error and upheld the consecutive sentences of 12.5 to 25 years given the heinous nature of the crimes and the defendant's extensive criminal record.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeAlbany County Airport IncidentWitness CredibilityPsychiatric HistoryAccomplice TestimonyCorroboration CPL 60.22Brady ViolationExculpatory MaterialJuror Misconduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp.

This is a toxic tort case brought by fifty-three individuals and related claimants against defendants engaged in uranium mining and milling activities in Karnes County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to ionizing radiation from uranium ore and its decay products caused their various cancers. The Court considered Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Malin Dollinger, the Plaintiffs’ sole expert on specific causation. Dr. Dollinger's methodology, based on differential diagnosis and the linear no-threshold hypothesis, was found unreliable for determining specific causation. Consequently, the Court granted Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Dollinger's testimony and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice due to Plaintiffs' lack of admissible proof on specific causation.

Toxic TortUranium MiningRadiation ExposureCancer CausationExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardSummary JudgmentSpecific CausationGeneral CausationEpidemiology
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 3,708 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational