People v. Page

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Page

57 A.D.3d 291, 868 N.Y.2d 526

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 291 (People v. Page) 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. Page, 57 A.D.3d 291, 868 N.Y.2d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

To the extent defendant is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, that claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. In addition, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The People’s case included defendant’s admissions to an acquaintance and extensive circumstantial evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations concerning the testimony of the civilian witnesses as well as that of the police witnesses who gathered physical evidence.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge regarding the son of the main prosecution witness, on the ground that the uncalled witness was not under the People’s control (see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 429 [1986]). The uncalled witness’s mother was not a victim of the crime, and there were no circumstances warranting an expectation that the uncalled witness would testify favorably to the People.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

To the extent defendant is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, that claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. In addition, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The People’s case included defendant’s admissions to an acquaintance and extensive circumstantial evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations concerning the testimony of the civilian witnesses as well as that of the police witnesses who gathered physical evidence.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge regarding the son of the main prosecution witness, on the ground that the uncalled witness was not under the People’s control (see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 429 [1986]). The uncalled witness’s mother was not a victim of the crime, and there were no circumstances warranting an expectation that the uncalled witness would testify favorably to the People.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 291, 868 N.Y.2d 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-page-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack