From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Woodford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 1994
200 A.D.2d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 18, 1994

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


Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to provide that all terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge with respect to the arresting officer. Because the defendant waited until both sides had rested to request his charge, the request was untimely and was thus properly denied (see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v Catoe, 181 A.D.2d 905; People v. Randall, 177 A.D.2d 661; People v Pendleton, 156 A.D.2d 725).

The defendant's sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Woodford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 1994
200 A.D.2d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Woodford

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD WOODFORD…

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

Date published: Jan 18, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 854

Citing Cases

People v. Wright

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge. However,…

People v. Whetts

The defendant contends that the trial court improperly denied his request for a missing witness charge. This…