Opinion
March 12, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the trial court improperly denied his request for a missing witness charge. It is well established that the party seeking a missing witness charge has the burden of establishing that the uncalled witness is knowledgeable about a material issue upon which evidence is already in the case, would naturally be expected to provide noncumulative testimony favorable to the party who should have called him, and is available to such party (see, People v Dianda, 70 N.Y.2d 894; People v Paulin, 70 N.Y.2d 685; People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427). We conclude that the defendant did not meet this burden, as he failed to demonstrate that the uncalled police witness would have offered something other than cumulative and nonmaterial testimony concerning the initial interview of the victim and the defendant's apprehension. In this regard we note that it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to "call at trial every witness to a crime or to make a complete and detailed accounting to the defense of all law enforcement investigatory work" (People v Stridiron, 33 N.Y.2d 287, 292; People v Buckler, 39 N.Y.2d 895, 897; People v Fields, 152 A.D.2d 958).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.