People v. Nimmons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nimmons

76 A.D.2d 935, 908 N.Y.S.2d 47

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 935 (People v. Nimmons) 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. Nimmons, 76 A.D.2d 935, 908 N.Y.S.2d 47 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme [936]*936Court, Bronx County (Richard L. Price, J.), rendered January 9, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness instruction. The witness, whose friendship with the victim had ended long before the trial, was not in the People’s control for purposes of a missing witness charge (see People v Abelson, 27 AD3d 301 [2006]). In any event, given the overwhelming evidence that defendant violated the order of protection, any error would have been harmless.

Defendant’s remaining arguments are unavailing (see People v Correa, 15 NY3d 213 [2010]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme [936]*936Court, Bronx County (Richard L. Price, J.), rendered January 9, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness instruction. The witness, whose friendship with the victim had ended long before the trial, was not in the People’s control for purposes of a missing witness charge (see People v Abelson, 27 AD3d 301 [2006]). In any event, given the overwhelming evidence that defendant violated the order of protection, any error would have been harmless.

Defendant’s remaining arguments are unavailing (see People v Correa, 15 NY3d 213 [2010]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 935, 908 N.Y.S.2d 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nimmons-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack