People v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 29 November 1984 |
| Citation | 485 N.Y.S.2d 40,64 N.Y.2d 634,474 N.E.2d 248 |
| Parties | , 474 N.E.2d 248 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George WILSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 102 A.D.2d 1018, 476 N.Y.S.2d 231, should be affirmed.
The trial court did not err in giving the missing witness charge. Although defendant had no burden to come forward with alibi evidence, once he did so, his failure to call an available witness to support the alibi could be brought to the jury's attention inasmuch as it appeared that the witness, defendant's wife, would be favorable to him and hostile to the prosecution and the testimony would not be trivial or cumulative (see People v. Rodriguez, 38 N.Y.2d 95, 378 N.Y.S.2d 665, 341 N.E.2d 231).
Defendant's assertion that the charge violated his marital privilege is unfounded. Although acts as well as words may be "communications" (People v. Daghita, 299 N.Y. 194, 86 N.E.2d 172), they are not privileged unless they are confidential (People v. Melski, 10 N.Y.2d 78, 80, 217 N.Y.S.2d 65, 176 N.E.2d 81). The privilege is "designed to protect not all the daily and ordinary exchanges between the spouses, but merely those which would not have been made but for the absolute confidence in, and induced by, the marital relationship" (id.). Despite defendant's arguments to the contrary, it cannot be said that the mere fact of his presence or absence from his apartment constituted a communication which would not have been made but for the marital relationship.
With regard to defendant's objection to the propriety of his identification at a lineup, the trial court considered the circumstances of the identification, and found that it was not unduly suggestive. The Appellate Division affirmed this finding. Thus, the determination is beyond the scope of our review absent any alleged error of law (People v. Dickerson, 50 N.Y.2d 937, 431 N.Y.S.2d 453, 409 N.E.2d 927, affg. 67 A.D.2d 122, 414 N.Y.S.2d 712).
The other purported errors raised by the defendant were not preserved for our review.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Taylor
...rise to an inference that his testimony would actually have been unfavorable rather than favorable"); People v. Wilson, 64 N.Y.2d 634, 635-36, 474 N.E.2d 248, 485 N.Y.S.2d 40 (1984) ("[a]lthough defendant had no burden to come forward with alibi evidence, once he did so, his failure to call......
-
People v. Chipp
...Appellate Division, if supported by the record is beyond our review unless there is an alleged error of law. (People v. Wilson, 64 N.Y.2d 634, 485 N.Y.S.2d 40, 474 N.E.2d 248; People v. Dickerson, 50 N.Y.2d 937, 431 N.Y.S.2d 453, 409 N.E.2d 927, affg. 67 A.D.2d 122, 414 N.Y.S.2d 712; see al......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...that the witness would not be expected to testify favorably to the People and adversely to the defendant ( People v. Wilson, 64 N.Y.2d 634, 635, 485 N.Y.S.2d 40, 474 N.E.2d 248; People v. Rodriguez, supra; People v. Moore, supra Here, defendant adequately met the threshold requirements to e......
-
People v. Rodriguez
..."would not have been made but for the absolute confidence in, and induced by, the marital relationship" (People v. Wilson, 64 N.Y.2d 634, 636, 485 N.Y.S.2d 40, 474 N.E.2d 248 [1984] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). Further, defendant essentially repeated the same facts as ......