You are here: / / THE PROPONENT OF A MISSING WITNESS CHARGE MUST FIRST DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY...

THE PROPONENT OF A MISSING WITNESS CHARGE MUST FIRST DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE MISSING WITNESS WOULD NOT MERELY BE CUMULATIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the proponent of a missing witness jury instruction must first demonstrate the testimony of the witness would not have been cumulative:

In the [1st] , [2nd], and [3rd] Departments, it is well established that the proponent of such a charge has the ” initial burden of proving,’ ” inter alia, that the missing witness has ” noncumulative’ ” testimony to offer on behalf of the opposing party … . That rule has been explicitly and consistently reiterated by our sister appellate courts … .

We have never held otherwise. * * *

Here, defendant—as the proponent of the missing witness charge—failed to meet his initial burden of proving, prima facie, that the missing witness had noncumulative testimony to offer on the People’s behalf… . Neither defendant nor the dissent claim otherwise; instead, they argue only that defendant had no such initial burden and, as discussed above, we reject that view of the law. Further, although our holding does not rest on this point, we note our disagreement with the dissent that defendant met his initial burden of demonstrating that the uncalled witness would have testified favorably to the People. People v Smith, 2018 NY Slip Op 04863, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (MISSING WITNESS CHARGE, THE PROPONENT OF A MISSING WITNESS CHARGE MUST FIRST DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE MISSING WITNESS WOULD NOT MERELY BE CUMULATIVE (FOURTH DEPT))/MISSING WITNESS CHARGE (CRIMINAL LAW, THE PROPONENT OF A MISSING WITNESS CHARGE MUST FIRST DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE MISSING WITNESS WOULD NOT MERELY BE CUMULATIVE (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE PROPONENT OF A MISSING WITNESS CHARGE MUST FIRST DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE MISSING WITNESS WOULD NOT MERELY BE CUMULATIVE (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Case Sent Back to Suppression Court to Determine Whether Police Had Sufficient Reason for Asking About Drugs and Weapons After Traffic Stop
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED BECAUSE IT WAS INDUCED BY THE JUDGE’S PROMISE THAT ALL THE COURT’S ORDERS COULD BE APPEALED; IN FACT, THE DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION THAT TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WERE DUPLICITOUS COULD NOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE REMARKS MADE BY THE POLICE DURING THE INTERROGATION OF DEFENDANT SERVED TO NEGATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; INTERROGATION CONTINUED AFTER DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; THE ERRORS WERE DEEMED HARMLESS BECAUSE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED EVEN IF THE STATEMENTS HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE RECORD IS SILENT ABOUT THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S PERIODIC ABSENCE FROM THE TRIAL; WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WAS DELIBERATE, CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE IS A “MODE OF PROCEEDINGS” ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; AN APPELLATE COURT MUST REMIT FOR A RULING BY THE TRIAL COURT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TOWN CONTRACTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED; DEFENDANT CONTRACTED WITH THE TOWN TO HANDLE BIDS FOR THE PROJECT; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR THE TOWN AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 AND NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT,...