People v. Carr

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Carr

926 N.E.2d 253, 14 N.Y.3d 808, 899 N.Y.S.2d 746

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 1, 2010

Docket50

StatusPublished

Cited by41 cases

This text of 926 N.E.2d 253 (People v. Carr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Carr, 926 N.E.2d 253, 14 N.Y.3d 808, 899 N.Y.S.2d 746 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A party seeking a missing witness instruction has the burden of making the request “as soon as practicable” (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428 [1986]). Whether such a request is timely is a question to be decided by the trial court in its discretion, taking into account both when the requesting party knew or should have known that a basis for a missing witness charge existed, and any prejudice that may have been suffered by the other party as a result of the delay.

Here, defendant knew at the outset of the trial that the People did not intend to call three of the victim’s relatives who were present at the time of the alleged crime. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, made more than a week after the People provided their witness list, and after the People had rested their case-in-chief, came too late.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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