People v. Blackledge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blackledge

129 A.D.3d 412, 10 N.Y.S.3d 229

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 2, 2015

Docket15281 3905/10

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 412 (People v. Blackledge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Blackledge, 129 A.D.3d 412, 10 N.Y.S.3d 229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered April 9, 2013, as amended July 2, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted the prosecutor’s request for a missing witness charge regarding defendant’s mother and girlfriend, who were potential alibi witnesses given defendant’s testimony about his whereabouts at the time of the crime. Each of these witnesses could have been expected to provide material noncumulative testimony (see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]).

Contrary to defendant’s argument, his own testimony established that his girlfriend was in a position to support his alibi. Whether or not her testimony would actually have been helpful is “the precise questiont ] which [s]he could have answered if [s]he had been called to testify” (People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532, 538 [1991]; compare People v Dianda, 70 NY2d 894 [1987] [no evidence that uncalled witness was present at critical time]). Furthermore, defendant’s girlfriend’s testimony would not have been cumulative to his own testimony. Defendant essentially presented an alibi defense without any alibi witnesses, and the credibility of his testimony was at issue (see People v Smith, 240 AD2d 600 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 898 [1997]).

Defendant also asserts, for the first time on appeal, that his mother was not under his control for missing witness purposes because she had filed some sort of charge against defendant. While defense counsel made a reference to this charge, it was in a different context from the issue of control, and the court did not “expressly decide[ ]” (CPL 470.05 [2]) the particular issue raised on appeal (see People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]). Accordingly, we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record supports the inference that defendant’s mother, with whom defendant resided, was a presumably favorable witness.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered April 9, 2013, as amended July 2, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted the prosecutor’s request for a missing witness charge regarding defendant’s mother and girlfriend, who were potential alibi witnesses given defendant’s testimony about his whereabouts at the time of the crime. Each of these witnesses could have been expected to provide material noncumulative testimony (see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]).

Contrary to defendant’s argument, his own testimony established that his girlfriend was in a position to support his alibi. Whether or not her testimony would actually have been helpful is “the precise questiont ] which [s]he could have answered if [s]he had been called to testify” (People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532, 538 [1991]; compare People v Dianda, 70 NY2d 894 [1987] [no evidence that uncalled witness was present at critical time]). Furthermore, defendant’s girlfriend’s testimony would not have been cumulative to his own testimony. Defendant essentially presented an alibi defense without any alibi witnesses, and the credibility of his testimony was at issue (see People v Smith, 240 AD2d 600 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 898 [1997]).

Defendant also asserts, for the first time on appeal, that his mother was not under his control for missing witness purposes because she had filed some sort of charge against defendant. While defense counsel made a reference to this charge, it was in a different context from the issue of control, and the court did not “expressly decide[ ]” (CPL 470.05 [2]) the particular issue raised on appeal (see People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]). Accordingly, we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record supports the inference that defendant’s mother, with whom defendant resided, was a presumably favorable witness.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 412, 10 N.Y.S.3d 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blackledge-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack