From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chisom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 11, 1991
170 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 11, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We do not agree with the defendant that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his request, strenuously opposed by the People, for a missing witness charge (see, e.g., People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424) with respect to one of the police officers involved in the defendant's arrest. The People are not obligated to produce every witness to a crime so long as evidence potentially favorable to the defendant has not been suppressed (see, People v Stridiron, 33 N.Y.2d 287, 292; People v Bradley, 160 A.D.2d 808) and we note that defense counsel commented extensively during summation on the People's failure to produce the officer (cf., People v Gonzalez, supra). Under the circumstances, we discern no improvident exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court in declining to issue the requested charge. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Chisom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 11, 1991
170 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Chisom

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIE CHISOM, Also…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 11, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 86

Citing Cases

People v. Rivera

The trial court referred to the statement in its instructions to the jury as the one "allegedly" made by the…

People v. Ortiz

This case is further distinguishable from People v Kitching (supra), relied upon by appellant, in that there…