People v. Rincon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rincon

295 A.D.2d 166, 743 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6146

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

DecidedJune 13, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 166 (People v. Rincon) 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. Rincon, 295 A.D.2d 166, 743 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered January 13, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of three years to life and .1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge concerning an officer who concededly did not observe the drug transactions in question or defendant’s arrest. Since, at best, this officer’s testimony would have been limited to his account of radio communications made by the undercover officer and other peripheral matters, defendant did not establish that he was knowledgeable about any material matter involved in the case (compare, People v Lyons, 81 NY2d 753, with People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532). Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered January 13, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of three years to life and .1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge concerning an officer who concededly did not observe the drug transactions in question or defendant’s arrest. Since, at best, this officer’s testimony would have been limited to his account of radio communications made by the undercover officer and other peripheral matters, defendant did not establish that he was knowledgeable about any material matter involved in the case (compare, People v Lyons, 81 NY2d 753, with People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532). Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 166, 743 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rincon-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack