People v. Hinton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hinton

217 A.D.2d 708, 630 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8187

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 31, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered May 14, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge regarding the People’s failure to call the second arresting officer to testify, since the officer’s testimony would have been cumulative (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428). In any event, the prosecution offered to make the officer available to the defendant, yet the defendant [709] declined to call him as a witness, and the trial court permitted the defense counsel to argue on summation that the jury could draw the negative inference from the People’s failure to call the officer (see, People v Sykes, 151 AD2d 523, 524; see also, People v Mendez, 138 AD2d 637, 638).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, 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 (Goldstein, J.), rendered May 14, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge regarding the People’s failure to call the second arresting officer to testify, since the officer’s testimony would have been cumulative (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428). In any event, the prosecution offered to make the officer available to the defendant, yet the defendant [709] declined to call him as a witness, and the trial court permitted the defense counsel to argue on summation that the jury could draw the negative inference from the People’s failure to call the officer (see, People v Sykes, 151 AD2d 523, 524; see also, People v Mendez, 138 AD2d 637, 638).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

People v. Hinton, 217 A.D.2d 708, 630 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

217 A.D.2d 708 (People v. Hinton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related