People v. McGill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McGill

163 A.D.2d 841, 559 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9520

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D.2d 841 (People v. McGill) 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. McGill, 163 A.D.2d 841, 559 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, defendant argues that the court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge with respect to Officer Raggi, one of two surveillance officers. The other surveillance officer and the undercover officer who purchased the drugs on two occasions each testified that he knew defendant by name and sight before the drug buys. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request, based on its [842]*842determination, with which we agree, that the testimony of Officer Raggi would be cumulative (see, People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 132-133; cf., People v Fields, 76 NY2d 761; People v Rodriguez, 38 NY2d 95, 101; People v Ronchi, 154 AD2d 891, 892).

Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal are lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, defendant argues that the court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge with respect to Officer Raggi, one of two surveillance officers. The other surveillance officer and the undercover officer who purchased the drugs on two occasions each testified that he knew defendant by name and sight before the drug buys. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request, based on its [842]*842determination, with which we agree, that the testimony of Officer Raggi would be cumulative (see, People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 132-133; cf., People v Fields, 76 NY2d 761; People v Rodriguez, 38 NY2d 95, 101; People v Ronchi, 154 AD2d 891, 892).

Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal are lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D.2d 841, 559 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcgill-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack