People v. Smalls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smalls

81 A.D.3d 669, 916 N.Y.S.2d 795

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 81 A.D.3d 669 (People v. Smalls) 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. Smalls, 81 A.D.3d 669, 916 N.Y.S.2d 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered November 5, 2008, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[670]*670Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court’s denial of his request for a missing witness charge (see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]; People v Vera, 11 AD3d 716 [2004]). In any event, even if the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered November 5, 2008, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[670]*670Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court’s denial of his request for a missing witness charge (see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]; People v Vera, 11 AD3d 716 [2004]). In any event, even if the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 669, 916 N.Y.S.2d 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smalls-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack