People v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miller

259 A.D.2d 1031, 689 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3436

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 1031 (People v. Miller) 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. Miller, 259 A.D.2d 1031, 689 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). County Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the People to reopen their case after the close of proof to call the confidential informant as a witness. Although defendant knew before the People rested that the People did not intend to call the informant as a witness, defendant did not request production of the informant and waited until the charge conference to request a missing witness instruction (see, People v Parilla, 158 AD2d 556, 557; see also, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428; People v Randall, 177 AD2d 661, 661-662, lv denied 79 NY2d 1053). Defendant’s remaining contentions are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). County Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the People to reopen their case after the close of proof to call the confidential informant as a witness. Although defendant knew before the People rested that the People did not intend to call the informant as a witness, defendant did not request production of the informant and waited until the charge conference to request a missing witness instruction (see, People v Parilla, 158 AD2d 556, 557; see also, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428; People v Randall, 177 AD2d 661, 661-662, lv denied 79 NY2d 1053). Defendant’s remaining contentions are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 1031, 689 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miller-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack