People v. Edwards

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Edwards

925 N.E.2d 867, 14 N.Y.3d 733, 899 N.Y.S.2d 65

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 11, 2010

Docket80 SSM 28

StatusPublished

Cited by39 cases

This text of 925 N.E.2d 867 (People v. Edwards) 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. Edwards, 925 N.E.2d 867, 14 N.Y.3d 733, 899 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

*735 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Whether a particular request for counsel “is or is not unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact,” which, if supported by record evidence, is beyond further review by this Court (People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838, 839 [1995]). Such record evidence exists here.

A missing witness charge is warranted for a party’s failure to produce a witness, under its control, where his or her testimony would have been material and noncumulative of other testimony or evidence (see People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 177 [1994]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]). “[T]he party seeking the missing witness charge must sustain an initial burden of showing that the opposing party has failed to call a witness who could be expected to have knowledge regarding a material issue in the case and to provide testimony favorable to the opposing party” (Macana, 84 NY2d at 177). Here, defendant argued that the uncalled witness could have either contradicted or corroborated the complaining witness, but did not demonstrate that her testimony would have been noncumulative or expected to be favorable to the People.

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

*735 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Whether a particular request for counsel “is or is not unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact,” which, if supported by record evidence, is beyond further review by this Court (People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838, 839 [1995]). Such record evidence exists here.

A missing witness charge is warranted for a party’s failure to produce a witness, under its control, where his or her testimony would have been material and noncumulative of other testimony or evidence (see People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 177 [1994]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]). “[T]he party seeking the missing witness charge must sustain an initial burden of showing that the opposing party has failed to call a witness who could be expected to have knowledge regarding a material issue in the case and to provide testimony favorable to the opposing party” (Macana, 84 NY2d at 177). Here, defendant argued that the uncalled witness could have either contradicted or corroborated the complaining witness, but did not demonstrate that her testimony would have been noncumulative or expected to be favorable to the People.

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

925 N.E.2d 867, 14 N.Y.3d 733, 899 N.Y.S.2d 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-edwards-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack