PEOPLE v. MARTIN (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan Merchan, J.), rendered April 13, 2023, as amended April 20, 2023, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to three concurrent terms of fourteen years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly determined that 172 days were chargeable to the People, and therefore defendant's right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30(1)(a) was not violated (see People v. Humphrey, 231 A.D.3d 413, 217 N.Y.S.3d 545 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 1080, 227 N.Y.S.3d 576, 252 N.E.3d 515 [2025];  People v. Solano, 206 A.D.3d 432, 433, 167 N.Y.S.3d 782 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1076, 183 N.Y.S.3d 803, 204 N.E.3d 439 [2023] ).

The People did not establish that the police officer possessed sufficient familiarity with defendant to render his identification of defendant on the surveillance footage helpful to the jury (see People v. Mosley, 41 N.Y.3d 640, 648, 215 N.Y.S.3d 303, 239 N.E.3d 928 [2024] ).  The officer did not know defendant before defendant's arrest and spent time with him only while defendant was in custody.  Furthermore, there was no testimony indicating that the quality of the surveillance video would have made it difficult to identify defendant (id. at 649, 652, 215 N.Y.S.3d 303, 239 N.E.3d 928).  However, any error in admitting the officer's testimony was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (id. at 652–653, 215 N.Y.S.3d 303, 239 N.E.3d 928).

The People were not required to give identification notice pursuant to CPL 710.30(1)(b) regarding in-court identification testimony by two witnesses who were familiar with defendant and did not identify him in any police-arranged procedure (see People v. DeJesus, 192 A.D.3d 561, 561, 143 N.Y.S.3d 356 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 964, 148 N.Y.S.3d 752, 171 N.E.3d 228 [2021] ).

The court did not err in denying defendant's request for a missing witness charge regarding two eyewitnesses, where the witnesses, who adamantly refused to testify at trial, were unavailable and not in the People's control (see generally People v. Savinon, 100 N.Y.2d 192, 196, 761 N.Y.S.2d 144, 791 N.E.2d 401 [2003];  People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583 [1986];  see People v. Bush, 189 A.D.3d 643, 644, 138 N.Y.S.3d 31 [1st Dept 2020];  People v. Hernandez, 256 A.D.2d 18, 19, 682 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 874, 689 N.Y.S.2d 436, 711 N.E.2d 650 [1999] ).