Opinion ID: 2130344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Control (The Favorability Factor)

Text: Not surprisingly, control and availability can blur into one another. [10] In common usage, control suggests availability: if A controls B surely A can produce B as a witness. But for purposes of the uncalled witness rule, control does not concern physical availability but rather the relationship between the witness and the parties ( Gonzalez, 68 NY2d at 429). [11] Where there is a relationship, in legal status or on the facts, as to make it natural to expect the party to have called the witness to testify in his favor, the so-called control element is satisfied ( id. ). [12] Control (as one commentator has thoughtfully suggested) might more accurately be referred to as the favorability component of the rule. [13] Here, although their relationship purportedly came to an end shortly after the episode, defendant and Camacho had been friends and business associates. Indeed, under either side's version of the alleged crime, defendant was so bonded with Camacho as to have had sex with complainant with Camacho nearby. The closeness of this relationship, even if it had not remained current, was enough to substantiate the prosecution's request for a missing witness instruction ( see Vasquez, 76 NY2d at 724). Defendant acknowledges his friendship with Camacho, but points to Camacho's relationship with the complainant as evidence that he would have been no less favorable to her. This characterization, however, makes too much of the contacts between the two. Camacho drove the complainant home and stayed with her for a few hours. He also visited her and once went to her sister's house. Complainant testified that she had no contact with Camacho for over a year before trial, did not know his whereabouts and did not even know his last name; she knew him only as Flaco. In all, it did not begin to approach the level of friendship that Camacho had with defendant. In any event, as instructed by the trial court, the jury was free to decide for itself whether to apply what the court correctly described as a permissive adverse inference. In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that both the availability and favorability elements were met, and giving the missing witness instruction. Defendant's challenges to several of the prosecutor's statements during summation are unpreserved. His remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Order affirmed.