From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 12, 1987
126 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

January 12, 1987

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Coutant, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It appears that the defendant has misread the record of his suppression hearing, since the court did render an oral decision at the close of all the evidence, stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to both the Wade and Huntley issues. Furthermore, the record establishes that the defendant was advised of the Miranda warnings by the arresting police officer who testified at the hearing. Although the defendant denied that these warnings had even been given to him, it was for the court to decide which testimony to credit. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, we conclude that the court's findings were correct (see, People v. Spivack, 111 A.D.2d 884; People v. Alver, 111 A.D.2d 339, 340; People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726).

By requesting in writing that a missing witness charge with regard to Reginald Brown be submitted to the jury, the defendant has preserved for our review, as a matter of law, his claim that the court erred by refusing to give the charge (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 280). However, the defendant has neither shown that Brown would have offered anything other than cumulative testimony if produced at the trial, nor that he was under the control of the People, which two criteria must be met before a missing witness charge can be given (see, Chandler v. Flynn, 111 A.D.2d 300, 301; People v. Moore, 17 A.D.2d 57, cert denied 371 U.S. 838). In fact, it appears that Brown was a friend of the defendant who may have been equally available to the defense and the prosecution.

We find no error with respect to the admissibility of any of the in-court identifications (see, People v. Camacho, 110 A.D.2d 844) and note that the weight to be accorded thereto is a matter for the jury to resolve (see, People v. Herriot, 110 A.D.2d 851).

We find no merit to the defendant's remaining contentions. Rubin, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 12, 1987
126 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Rose

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ADRIAN J. ROSE…

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

Date published: Jan 12, 1987

Citations

126 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Sterling

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Although defendant argues, inter alia, that the court erred in…

People v. Nasario

In addition, the court did not err in denying the defendant's request for a missing witness charge where the…