HAWKINS, MAURICE A., PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    555
    KA 07-02085
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    MAURICE A. HAWKINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID JUERGENS OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH D. WALDORF OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County
    (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), rendered August 24, 2007. The judgment
    convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the
    second degree, assault in the first degree, and burglary in the first
    degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury
    verdict of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00,
    125.25 [1]), assault in the first degree (§ 120.10 [1]), and burglary
    in the first degree (§ 140.30 [1], [2], [4]), defendant contends that
    Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying his request for a
    missing witness charge. We reject that contention (see People v
    Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 197). Even assuming, arguendo, defendant met
    his initial burden in support of his request for that charge by
    showing, inter alia, that the potential witness would be knowledgeable
    concerning a material issue at trial and would be expected to provide
    testimony that would be favorable to the People (see People v
    Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428), we conclude that the People met their
    burden of establishing “that the charge would not be appropriate” (id.
    at 428). The prosecutor established that the missing witness would
    have provided certain testimony that was cumulative to that of other
    witnesses (see People v White, 265 AD2d 843, 843-844, lv denied 94
    NY2d 868), and that the witness otherwise would not be expected to
    provide testimony that was favorable to the People’s case (see People
    v Wilson, 256 AD2d 637, 638, lv denied 93 NY2d 880; People v
    Congilaro, 159 AD2d 964, 965, lv denied 76 NY2d 786).
    Entered:   May 6, 2011                             Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 07-02085

Filed Date: 5/6/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016