From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 1990
160 A.D.2d 1032 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

April 30, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

The defendant's failure to promptly request a missing witness charge when he became aware that the complainant was not going to testify warranted the denial of his request (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v. Waldron, 154 A.D.2d 635). Even if his request had been timely, he would not have been entitled to such a charge given the fact that the complainant's absence was as a result of her being ill (see, People v. Gonzalez, supra, at 428).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 1990
160 A.D.2d 1032 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Shaw

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EVERETT SHAW, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 30, 1990

Citations

160 A.D.2d 1032 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

People v. Turner

The court properly denied defendant's request for a missing witness charge. The People made a sufficient…

People v. Evans

05; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the…