People v. Ortiz
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Elmore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- People v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Calderon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- People v. McCalla (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- People v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- People v. Roman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Arredondo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Ashby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Artis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Shaw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Church (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Watson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- State ex rel. Peeples v. Wilford (Ohio 1995)
- People v. Robertson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The dispositive issue is whether the trial court’s denial of the requested missing witness instruction is reversible error under the facts and circumstances of this case applying our standard rubrics. At trial, defendant Ortiz joined in a request for an adverse inference instruction as to a nontestifying police officer, who was in a car near the scene of the buy-and-bust criminal drug transaction that led to the arrest and conviction. The undercover officer who actually engaged in the drug sale and the arresting officer testified concerning identification aspects of the case. The jury convicted defendant, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal. We now affirm, because on this record it was not unreasonable for the trial court to refuse to give the requested instruction on the ground that the nontestifying undercover officer’s testimony would have added only cumulative evidence.
The trial court weighed the entire proof from the People in rendering its instruction ruling. That court did not commit any error or shift any burdens with respect to this ruling. The record justifies the inferences and conclusions drawn by the trial court to support its well-informed and supportable denial of the requested instruction (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 430; People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 177 [decided today]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.