People v. Bradley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bradley

160 A.D.2d 808, 554 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4238

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

DecidedApril 9, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 808 (People v. Bradley) 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. Bradley, 160 A.D.2d 808, 554 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), rendered January 6, 1986, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly denied his request for a missing witness charge. The defendant waited until both sides had rested to make his request to charge. The untimely request put the People at a disadvantage and was thus correctly denied (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424; People v Waldron, 154 AD2d 635). In any event; "there is no duty on the prosecutor to call at trial every witness to a crime” and no prejudice or deprivation of due process will be found if certain witnesses are not called, providing that there is no suppression of evidence potentially favorable to the defendant (People v Stridiron, 33 NY2d 287, 292; People v Buckler, 39 NY2d 895, 897; People v Hicks, 154 AD2d 713).

We also disagree with defendant’s contention that the submission to the jury of a verdict sheet containing written instructions constituted reversible error, since the record shows that defense counsel expressly consented to this procedure (see, People v Hallums, 157 AD2d 800).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention [809]*809and find it to be unpreserved for appellate review. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, 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, Kings County (Schneier, J.), rendered January 6, 1986, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly denied his request for a missing witness charge. The defendant waited until both sides had rested to make his request to charge. The untimely request put the People at a disadvantage and was thus correctly denied (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424; People v Waldron, 154 AD2d 635). In any event; "there is no duty on the prosecutor to call at trial every witness to a crime” and no prejudice or deprivation of due process will be found if certain witnesses are not called, providing that there is no suppression of evidence potentially favorable to the defendant (People v Stridiron, 33 NY2d 287, 292; People v Buckler, 39 NY2d 895, 897; People v Hicks, 154 AD2d 713).

We also disagree with defendant’s contention that the submission to the jury of a verdict sheet containing written instructions constituted reversible error, since the record shows that defense counsel expressly consented to this procedure (see, People v Hallums, 157 AD2d 800).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention [809]*809and find it to be unpreserved for appellate review. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 808, 554 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bradley-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack