People v. Gadson

161 A.D.2d 795, 556 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6719
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 29, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 795 (People v. Gadson) 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. Gadson, 161 A.D.2d 795, 556 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered September 2, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree and [796]*796criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the trial court meaningfully responded to the jury’s request for a readback of the testimony of one of the People’s witnesses (see, People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 301). It was well within the court’s discretion to have asked the jury what portion of the testimony it wanted read back and for the jury to indicate when it had heard enough. Thus the court indicated to the jury a continued willingness to abide by their wishes (see, People v Elie, 150 AD2d 719; People v Carrero, 140 AD2d 533, 534).

Further, the court properly denied a missing witness charge with respect to Barry Dowdy since it was not shown that the witness was under the control of the prosecutor and it was established that the witness would in fact testify more favorably to the defendant than he would to the prosecution (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428). Further, the witness was in court and was available to the defense.

The defendant’s sentence was fully justified in view of the callous, senseless and brutal nature of the crime.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866; People v Carter, 137 AD2d 826, 828) and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Calas
134 A.D.3d 1043 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Gauze
3 A.D.3d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Deoleo
295 A.D.2d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Gadson
255 A.D.2d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Latchman
251 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Spruils
228 A.D.2d 235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. McCray
204 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Brownlee
199 A.D.2d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Leon
180 A.D.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 A.D.2d 795, 556 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gadson-nyappdiv-1990.