From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 2002
294 A.D.2d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

828

May 7, 2002.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered April 8, 1999, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Tami J. Aisenson, for respondent.

Karen Marcus for defendant-appellant pro se.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Buckley, Rosenberger, Ellerin, JJ.


The court properly denied defendant's application for a missing witness charge concerning the "ghost" officer. The court properly found this request to be untimely, since it was made after the close of evidence and the record fails to support defendant's assertion that it was made "as soon as practicable" (People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 428). In addition, the request was properly denied on the ground that the People established that the ghost officer, who did not witness the sales transaction, could not provide material, non-cumulative testimony (id.). Assuming, arguendo , that the ghost officer was in a position to observe whether defendant entered a building with the undercover officer, the testimony would have been cumulative since there was nothing in the record to indicate that the ghost officer's testimony would have added to the undercover officer's testimony (see, People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 133). Since the undercover officer's credibility was not impeached on cross-examination, corroboration of his testimony was not crucial (see, People v. Gonzalez, supra, at 430).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.

Motion seeking leave to dismiss indictment denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 2002
294 A.D.2d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. MATTHEW WILLIAMS…

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

Date published: May 7, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
740 N.Y.S.2d 879

Citing Cases

People v. Valente

"The party opposing the charge can defeat the initial showing by ... ‘demonstrating,’ among other things,…

People v. Slater

Furthermore, contrary to defendant's contention, after weighing the relative probative force of conflicting…