Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darren Prince, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-02-10
Citations: 136 A.D.3d 844
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darren Prince, Appellant.
Judges: Dillon, J.P., Hall, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 844–845

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darren Prince, Appellant.
[24 NYS3d 519]

Opinion:
— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered November 19, 2013, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's request to charge the jury on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of murder in the second degree. There is no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014]; People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]), which would support a finding that the defendant acted with criminal negligence (see People v Hill, 266 AD2d 473, 474 [1999]; People v Stephens, 198 AD2d 245, 245-246 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 990 [1994]; People v Duncan, 55 AD2d 690, 690 [1976]).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his request for a missing witness charge is partially unpreserved for appellate review, since some of the specific arguments he now makes were not raised before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Spinelli, 79 AD3d 1152, 1152 [2010]; People v Lopez, 19 AD3d 510, 511 [2005]). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the witnesses were under the People's control (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 200 [2003]; People v Roseboro, 127 AD3d 998, 999 [2015]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Dillon, J.P., Hall, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.