Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

People v. McCloud

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 5, 2003

305 A.D.2d 428; 758 N.Y.S.2d 516

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Zamfino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
People v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Guerra (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
People v. Ford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
In re Quamel J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Iverson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Lubrano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Simon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered June 9, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge with respect to a police detective to whom the defendant made a statement. Because the defendant waited until both sides had rested to request his charge, the request was untimely and thus, properly denied (see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424 [1986]; People v Catoe, 181 AD2d 905 [1992]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the determination as to whether to reopen a case for further testimony rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see People v Ventura, 35 NY2d 654 [1974]; People v Aldridge, 247 AD2d 545 [1998]; *429People v Fama, 212 AD2d 542 [1995]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application to reopen the case.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.