From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mulero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1996
229 A.D.2d 402 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 1, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J., Slavin, J.).


Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to defendant's contention, he was not entitled to a missing witness charge in connection with his conviction under Indictment No. 12246/89 because the People failed to call a witness who saw the incident. That witness, through his lawyer, refused to testify, rebutting the defendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to the charge ( see, People v. Macana, 84 N.Y.2d 173).

The defendant's sentence is not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mulero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1996
229 A.D.2d 402 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Mulero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN MULERO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 402 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 650

Citing Cases

People v. Washington

This prompted the People to indicate that they would seek a contempt charge. Under such circumstances,…

People v. Picart

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his…