People v. Panzardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Panzardi

213 A.D.2d 1067, 624 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3914

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1067 (People v. Panzardi) 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. Panzardi, 213 A.D.2d 1067, 624 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) stemming from the events of October 25, 1991, when he shot the victim in the face.

There is no merit to the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred when it refused to grant his request for a missing witness charge concerning two men who were present at the scene of the shooting. Defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing that the missing witnesses could be expected to testify favorably to the prosecution (see, People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 177; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424). Additionally, the evidence adduced at trial supports the court’s conclusion that, because the men were accomplices likely to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a missing witness charge was inappropriate (see, People v Macana, supra, at 177-178; People v Rodriguez, 38 NY2d 95, 98). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) stemming from the events of October 25, 1991, when he shot the victim in the face.

There is no merit to the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred when it refused to grant his request for a missing witness charge concerning two men who were present at the scene of the shooting. Defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing that the missing witnesses could be expected to testify favorably to the prosecution (see, People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 177; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424). Additionally, the evidence adduced at trial supports the court’s conclusion that, because the men were accomplices likely to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a missing witness charge was inappropriate (see, People v Macana, supra, at 177-178; People v Rodriguez, 38 NY2d 95, 98). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1067, 624 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-panzardi-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack