People v. Wallace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wallace

282 A.D.2d 482, 722 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3238

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 482 (People v. Wallace) 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. Wallace, 282 A.D.2d 482, 722 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 23, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. Because the defendant waited until both sides had rested to ask for that charge, his request was untimely (see, People v Bowman, 270 AD2d 355; People v France, 265 AD2d 424; People v Kourani, 256 AD2d 620, 622; People v Asphill, 208 AD2d 550, 551; People v Correll, 207 AD2d 410).

The defendant’s remaining contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Goldstein and McGinity, 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, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 23, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. Because the defendant waited until both sides had rested to ask for that charge, his request was untimely (see, People v Bowman, 270 AD2d 355; People v France, 265 AD2d 424; People v Kourani, 256 AD2d 620, 622; People v Asphill, 208 AD2d 550, 551; People v Correll, 207 AD2d 410).

The defendant’s remaining contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 482, 722 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wallace-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack