You are here: / / Missing Witness Charge Must Be Requested When It Is Known Witness Will...

Missing Witness Charge Must Be Requested When It Is Known Witness Will Not Testify.

Request for a missing witness jury instruction must be made when it is learned the witness will not be called, not after the close of proof.  Midstate Mutual Insurance Co vs Camp Road Transmission, Inc., 1462, CA 12-00961 Fourth Dept. 2-1-13

 

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT’S DISCUSSION OF PLAINTIFF CROSS-COUNTY COACH’S TERMINATION WITH STUDENTS WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FATAL VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE DECEDENT’S ALLEGED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT BAR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Horse Owner Liable for Injuries to Novice Rider
Stop and Investigative Detention of Defendant Was Proper Under DeBour Analysis/Defendant’s Absence from Initial Sandoval Conference Cured by His Presence at a Subsequent Sandoval Hearing/Defendant’s Sentence Reduced Based In Part on a Much Lower Sentence Attached to a Plea Offer
Insufficient Foundation for Cross Examination About Witness’ Mental Health
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS TRUCK LED TO AN ACCIDENT IN WHICH A VAN DRIVEN BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYEE STRUCK DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE; A LAWSUIT BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE AGAINST PLAINTIFF CULMINATED IN A $900,000 SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE RESULTING INCREASED INSURANCE PREMIUMS FORCED PLAINTIFF OUT OF BUSINESS; THE LOSS OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT A FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS TRUCK (FOURTH DEPT).
THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY (A WATER BOTTLE UNDER THE ACCELERATOR) WAS OF THE DEFENDANT’S OWN MAKING; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST DEFENDANT DRIVER’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Not Given Adequate Time to Decide Whether to Testify Before the Grand Jury—Conviction Reversed

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Successful Challenge to Property Tax Assessment Affirmed, General Question Whether Defendant Was “A Law Abiding Person” Violated Sandoval...