People v. Miles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miles

212 A.D.2d 975, 622 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1832

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 975 (People v. Miles) 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. Miles, 212 A.D.2d 975, 622 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the trial court erred in giving a missing witness charge; the record shows that the court denied the People’s request for such a charge and instructed the jury in accordance with a charge agreed upon by both attorneys.

There is also no merit to the contention that defendant was [976]*976prejudiced by the People’s failure to call Cheryl Riley as a witness. The record fails to disclose any evidence that such a person was available or even existed. In any event, the prosecution had no duty to call her as a witness (see, People v Vaughn, 35 AD2d 889). The court’s charge to the jury on reasonable doubt was proper in all respects. Finally, we conclude that the verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the trial court erred in giving a missing witness charge; the record shows that the court denied the People’s request for such a charge and instructed the jury in accordance with a charge agreed upon by both attorneys.

There is also no merit to the contention that defendant was [976]*976prejudiced by the People’s failure to call Cheryl Riley as a witness. The record fails to disclose any evidence that such a person was available or even existed. In any event, the prosecution had no duty to call her as a witness (see, People v Vaughn, 35 AD2d 889). The court’s charge to the jury on reasonable doubt was proper in all respects. Finally, we conclude that the verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 975, 622 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miles-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack