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
BECAUSE FATHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE APPEALABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
CODEFENDANT, WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE SAME FIRM; IN THIS SITUATION AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT IS AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS AND CONSENTS IS REQUIRED; MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.
Evidence Sufficient to Demonstrate No Constructive Notice of Ice on Step
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH OF HIS PERSON, HE WAS NOT, IN FACT, UNDER ARREST; THEREFORE THE KEY FOB AND THE FIREARM FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT AFFIRM ON ANY ALTERNATIVE BASIS (FOURTH DEPT).
Town, Not the Town Board, Was the Proper Party/Town Could Not Use Article 78/Declaratory Judgment to Enforce a Contract/Town Entitled to Specific Performance of Contract
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN BRINGING A POLICE OFFICER TO COURT TO TESTIFY AT A PRETRIAL HEARING; THE 33-DAY DELAY WAS UNREASONABLE AND CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT). ​
TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS AFFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THERE WAS NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF FATHER FAILED TO PLAN FOR THE CHILDREN’S FUTURE FOR ONE FULL YEAR (FOURTH DEPT). ​

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...