Title: The People v. Eric D. Carr

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 50  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Eric D. Carr,
            Appellant.
Nicholas T. Texido, for appellant.
Donna A. Milling, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
A party seeking a missing witness instruction has the
burden of making the request "as soon as practicable" (People v
Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428 [1986]).  Whether such a request is
timely is a question to be decided by the trial court in its
- 2 -
No. 50
- 2 -
discretion, taking into account both when the requesting party
knew or should have known that a basis for a missing witness
charge existed, and any prejudice that may have been suffered by
the other party as a result of the delay.
Here, defendant knew at the outset of the trial that
the People did not intend to call three of the victim's relatives
who were present at the time of the alleged crime.  Supreme Court
did not abuse its discretion in holding that defendant's request
for a missing witness charge, made more than a week after the
People provided their witness list, and after the People had
rested their case in chief, came too late.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided April 1, 2010