People v. Velez
Opinion of the Court
The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, since there was no evidence that the uncalled officer could have provided material, noncumulative testimony. The trial evidence failed to establish that this officer was in a position to see the transaction (see People v Dianda, 70 NY2d 894 [1987]; People v Brunner, 67 AD3d 464, 465 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 820 [2011]; compare People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532, 538 [1991]). The court accorded defendant sufficient scope in which to comment in summation on this officer’s absence, and it properly exercised its discretion in limiting defense arguments on this-issue. In any event, we find that any error in the court’s denial of a missing witness charge or in its limitations on defendant’s summation was harmless (see People v Thomas, 21 NY3d 226, 231 [2013]). Concur — Tom, J.R, Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.