People v. Sanders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sanders

279 A.D.2d 295, 718 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 143

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 295 (People v. Sanders) 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. Sanders, 279 A.D.2d 295, 718 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J.), rendered December 11, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 13 years and 8 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to give the jury a missing witness instruction with respect to an employee at the pizzeria where the robbery occurred. The evidence at trial established that the employee was not present during the robbery and only became involved in the incident when he briefly participated in a chase of defendant. Defendant failed to show that the employee could provide material, non-cumulative evidence (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J.), rendered December 11, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 13 years and 8 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to give the jury a missing witness instruction with respect to an employee at the pizzeria where the robbery occurred. The evidence at trial established that the employee was not present during the robbery and only became involved in the incident when he briefly participated in a chase of defendant. Defendant failed to show that the employee could provide material, non-cumulative evidence (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 295, 718 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanders-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack