People v. Farrow
Opinion of the Court
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered June 12, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying his request for a missing witness charge. The People cannot raise the issue of the untimeliness of the defendant’s request for the first time on appeal (People v Erts, 73 NY2d 872, 874; People v Brown, 183 AD2d 569). It is well-settled that a defendant requesting a missing witness charge has the initial burden of demonstrating that the uncalled witness is knowledgeable about a material issue upon which evidence is already in the case, and that the uncalled witness would naturally be expected to provide testimony favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427). While the defendant can adequately establish that the missing witness, who was present during the entire incident in question, was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case (see, People v Gonzalez, supra), he has failed to demonstrate that the witness would have testified favorably to the prosecution. Indeed,
Finally, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Lawrence, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.