Verdict:

• Library: The Rulebook: The Definitive Quick Reference Guide for New York Criminal Law Practitioners (2020 Ed.)

► VERDICT:

Distinction Between Factual Inconsistency and Legal Insufficiency: "Factual inconsistency and legal insufficiency are analytically distinct. One may inform the other—i.e., in some instances, a reviewing court may consider a jury's acquittal on one count in reviewing the record to determine if a factually inconsistent conviction on another count is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557, 563 n [2000] [noting 'propriety of consideration of . . . acquittals in some instances on legal issues such as the sufficiency of the evidence']; see e.g. People v Yarrell, 75 NY2d 828, 829 [1990]). But it does not follow that such factual inconsistency in the verdict renders the record evidence legally insufficient to support the conviction. Put another way, an acquittal is not a preclusive finding of any fact, in the same trial, that could have underlain the jury's determination" (People v Abraham, 22 NY3d 140, 146 [2013]).

Factual Inconsistency: "A verdict is factually inconsistent where, in light of the evidence presented, an acquittal on one count is factually irreconcilable with a conviction on another count (People v Muhammad, 17 NY3d 532, 545 [2011]). Factual inconsistency—'which can be attributed to...