People v. Bowman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bowman

270 A.D.2d 355, 704 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2671

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered April 2, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is [356] unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant further contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge in regard to an alleged fourth participant in the burglary at issue. Because the defendant waited until both sides had rested before requesting the charge, the request was untimely and was thus properly denied (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424; People v Waldron, 154 AD2d 635). Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered April 2, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is [356] unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant further contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge in regard to an alleged fourth participant in the burglary at issue. Because the defendant waited until both sides had rested before requesting the charge, the request was untimely and was thus properly denied (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424; People v Waldron, 154 AD2d 635). Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

People v. Bowman, 270 A.D.2d 355, 704 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 355 (People v. Bowman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related