You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD...
,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s request for a missing witness jury instruction should have been granted. Defendant was charged with contempt stemming from the violation of a protective order. It was alleged defendant pushed his former girlfriend to the ground in the presence of her date. Her date was subpoenaed by the People and was ready to testify but was not called by the People:

The proponent of a missing witness charge “initially must demonstrate only three things via a prompt request for the charge: (1) that there is an uncalled witness believed to be knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case,’ (2) that such witness can be expected to testify favorably to the opposing party,’ and (3) that such party has failed to call’ the witness to testify” … . “The party opposing the charge, in order to defeat the proponent’s initial showing, must either account for the witness’s absence or demonstrate that the charge would not be appropriate” … . “This burden can be met by demonstrating that the witness is not knowledgeable about the issue, that the issue is not material or relevant, that although the issue is material or relevant, the testimony would be cumulative to other evidence, that the witness is not available’, or that the witness is not under the party’s control’ such that he [or she] would not be expected to testify in his or her favor” … . If the party opposing the charge meets its burden to rebut the proponent’s prima facie showing, “the proponent retains the ultimate burden to show that the charge would be appropriate” … .

Here, the defendant met his prima facie burden to show that the complainant’s date was believed to be knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case and was expected to testify favorably to the People, who had failed to call him to testify. According to the complainant, her date was present during the incident … and was a victim during that incident. The People failed to rebut this prima facie showing … . Contrary to the People’s contention, they failed to establish that the complainant’s date was unavailable as a witness. He appeared in court pursuant to the People’s so-ordered subpoena, and his counsel stated that although he did not wish to be a witness, he was outside the courtroom and was prepared to testify. Further, the People did not establish that the complainant’s date was not under the People’s “control,” such that he would not be expected to testify in their favor, given that he allegedly was on a date with the complainant when the defendant lunged at them, threatened them, and pushed the complainant to the ground. Moreover, the People did not demonstrate that the testimony would have been cumulative. People v Sanchez2020 NY Slip Op 04494, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

You might also like
Defense Counsel’s Denial of Defendant’s Assertion He Was Forced to Plead Guilty Required Assignment of New Counsel
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE WRONG TYPEFACE IN THE RPAPL 1303 NOTICE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION SEEKING TO INVALIDATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THE SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION OF DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE, THERE WERE CLEAR SIGNS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCEEDINGS.
Jury’s Finding a Party Was at Fault But Such Fault Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Should Not Have Been Set Aside as Inconsistent and Against the Weight of the Evidence
DEFENDANT STRUCK THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT HIS FOOT SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL DID NOT PRESENT A NONEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OR TRIGGER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL.

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

DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT AT RESENTENCING ABSENT WAIVER,... THE 90-DAY CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE...