From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Parris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 5, 1998
247 A.D.2d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

Decided February 5, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J.).


The court properly declined to give the jury a missing witness instruction with respect to a cab driver who dropped the complainant off at a police car following the robbery since defendant failed to establish that the driver, who was not present during the robbery, was knowledgeable with respect to a material issue in the case and was expected to testify favorably to the People (People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424). Moreover, the People demonstrated that the unidentifiable witness was not available or under their control. Police testimony that the complainant entered the police car and pointed out the back of the car window towards the defendants completed the narrative and explained the officers' subsequent conduct (see, People v. Jones, 160 A.D.2d 333, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 790). Even if "inferential bolstering" had occurred, it would have been harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see, People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969, 970).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Parris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 5, 1998
247 A.D.2d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Parris

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE PARRIS…

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 358

Citing Cases

Tavarez v. Artus

05[2]; People v Vanier, 255 AD2d 610, 680 N.Y.S.2d 877). In any event, the testimony was properly admitted to…

People v. Vazquez

We reject the further contention of defendant that the court erred in permitting the investigating officer to…