People v. Morales
| Decision Date | 12 January 1987 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jose MORALES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John F. Clennan, Centereach, for appellant.
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Michael Blakey, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, EIBER and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered February 6, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving the prosecution the benefit of every inference to be drawn therefrom, as we must, the defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, 476 N.Y.S.2d 825, 465 N.E.2d 364, cert. denied 469 U.S. 932, 105 S.Ct. 327, 83 L.Ed.2d 264).
The trial court did not err in giving a missing witness charge with respect to the defendant's girlfriend. "Ordinarily, a court may not comment upon a defendant's failure to testify or otherwise to come forward with evidence, but, once a defendant does so, his failure to call an available witness who is under defendant's control and has information material to the case may be brought to the jurors' attention for their consideration" (People v. Rodriguez, 38 N.Y.2d 95, 98, 378 N.Y.S.2d 665, 341 N.E.2d 231; see also, People v. Wilson, 64 N.Y.2d 634, 485 N.Y.S.2d 40, 474 N.E.2d 248; People v. De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 525, 399 N.Y.S.2d 196, 369 N.E.2d 752). The defendant at bar took the stand and testified that he had been at his girlfriend's house on the night of the crime charged. The defendant further testified that he was walking directly home when he was stopped by a police officer and taken to the scene of the instant burglary. Contrary to the defendant's contention, this testimony tended to establish an alibi defense. Hence, any testimony the defendant's girlfriend might have provided was material and necessary to the case and the defendant's failure to call this witness could be brought to the jury's attention (see, People v. Wilson, supra; People v. Stallings, 112 A.D.2d 702, 491 N.Y.S.2d 875; cf. People v. Williams, 112 A.D.2d 176, 490 N.Y.S.2d 854). The court also properly instructed the jury to determine first whether the defendant's girlfriend was available to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jiminez
...that either of them was under the defendant's control (see, People v. Williams, 112 A.D.2d 177, 490 N.Y.S.2d 856; cf., People v. Morales, 126 A.D.2d 575, 510 N.Y.S.2d 693). Moreover, a missing witness charge is inappropriate where the missing witness could be viewed as an accomplice (see, P......
-
People v. Struss
...his control, such that he could be expected to proffer her testimony if it was likely to support his defense (see, People v. Morales, 126 A.D.2d 575, 510 N.Y.S.2d 693). As for County Court's refusal to give a circumstantial evidence charge, such a charge is only necessary when the People's ......
-
People v. Smith
...defendant's contention, his testimony tended to establish an alibi defense and hence, should be treated as such (see, People v. Morales, 126 A.D.2d 575, 510 N.Y.S.2d 693). Although a defendant has no burden to come forward with alibi evidence, once he does so, his failure to call available ......
-
People v. Bernhardt
...36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Grandison, 206 A.D.2d 389, 614 N.Y.S.2d 322; People v. Morales, 126 A.D.2d 575, 510 N.Y.S.2d 693). We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment ......