People v. Maldonado

124 A.D.2d 828, 508 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62159
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Maldonado. Read the opinion of the Court — 123 A.D.2d 788

Opinion

The evidence in this case does not support the conclusion that an uncalled witness was under the control of the prosecution at the time of trial. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to a missing witness charge as to that particular witness (see, People v Watkins, 67 AD2d 717). Thus, the court did not err in refusing to charge the jury as to the failure of the prosecution to call a particular eyewitness.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved (see, People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745), or without merit (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Maldonado, 124 A.D.2d 828, 508 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

124 A.D.2d 828 (People v. Maldonado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Satloff
437 N.E.2d 271 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Watkins
67 A.D.2d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)