Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. ANTONEDDY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Apr 15, 1996
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial as a result of being tried in absentia when he absconded before the commencement of trial ( see, People v Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136; People v. Roe, 196 A.D.2d 899, 900). The court did not err in denying defense counsel's request for a missing witness charge concerning the undercover police officer who monitored the so-called "buy-and-bust" transaction for which the defendant was arrested. The undercover officer was unavailable to testify as a result of injuries received in an unrelated "buy-and-bust" operation during which, among other injuries, his jaw was broken in three places and had to be wired shut ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v. Shaw, 160 A.D.2d 1032, 1033; People v. Aufiero, 139 A.D.2d 656, 657). Furthermore, the evidence in the record supports the court's conclusion that the testimony of the uncalled witness would have been entirely cumulative ( see, People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532, 536-537; People v. Fields, 76 N.Y.2d 761, 763; People v. Vasquez, 76 N.Y.2d 722, 724; People v. Erts, 73 N.Y.2d 872, 874).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.