People v. Severino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Severino

241 A.D.2d 304, 659 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7016

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D.2d 304 (People v. Severino) 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. Severino, 241 A.D.2d 304, 659 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered September 8, 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 5½ to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly rejected defendant’s request for a missing witness charge concerning two officers where the defense failed to meet the threshold requirement of establishing that the alleged witnesses were knowledgeable about a material issue in the case and could provide non-cumulative testimony (see, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532; People v White, 186 AD2d 503, lv denied 81 NY2d 796). Moreover, the defense failed to raise the matter as soon as practicable to allow the court to exercise its discretion and to permit the parties to tailor their strategies (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428). We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered September 8, 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 5½ to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly rejected defendant’s request for a missing witness charge concerning two officers where the defense failed to meet the threshold requirement of establishing that the alleged witnesses were knowledgeable about a material issue in the case and could provide non-cumulative testimony (see, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532; People v White, 186 AD2d 503, lv denied 81 NY2d 796). Moreover, the defense failed to raise the matter as soon as practicable to allow the court to exercise its discretion and to permit the parties to tailor their strategies (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428). We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 304, 659 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-severino-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack