People v. Patten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Patten

232 A.D.2d 276, 649 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10360

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 22, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered September 30, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, made after both sides rested, was untimely (People v White, 222 AD2d 209). In any event, defendant failed to meet his initial burden to support such a charge by demonstrating that the witnesses had any material knowledge (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427).

The handwritten notes of the police chemist, even if arguably a business record, were nothing more than evidence cumulative of her testimony, and, as such, were properly excluded in the court’s discretion (People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653, 658). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered September 30, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, made after both sides rested, was untimely (People v White, 222 AD2d 209). In any event, defendant failed to meet his initial burden to support such a charge by demonstrating that the witnesses had any material knowledge (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427).

The handwritten notes of the police chemist, even if arguably a business record, were nothing more than evidence cumulative of her testimony, and, as such, were properly excluded in the court’s discretion (People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653, 658). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

People v. Patten, 232 A.D.2d 276, 649 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 276 (People v. Patten) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related