Opinion
March 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.).
The jury's verdict was neither based on legally insufficient evidence nor against the weight of the evidence. The circumstances surrounding defendant's presence in a darkened, private, interior office, obviously not within the public portion of the building, provided ample evidence that defendant knowingly entered the office unlawfully, with intent to commit a crime therein (People v. Castillo, 47 N.Y.2d 270, 278), and the jury properly rejected the outlandish explanation offered by defendant in his testimony.
The court properly denied defendant's request for a missing witness charge, although not exclusively for the reason stated by the court. We agree with the People's position at trial that none of the criteria for a missing witness instruction were satisfied (see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427). The witness' potential testimony would have been barely relevant, there was no reason to expect that this former building employee's testimony would have been favorable to the People (People v. Heredia, 196 A.D.2d 885, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 896; People v. Archie, 167 A.D.2d 925, 926, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 991), and the witness had become unavailable by the time of trial despite reasonable efforts by the People to locate him.
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.