Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Cecil SEABROOKS, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered November 13, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that reversible error took place because the People's opening statement and a police detective's testimony improperly communicated to the jury that a witness, who was not produced, observed the shooting and identified the defendant in a lineup. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant failed to move for a mistrial based on the witness' failure to testify and failed to object to the lineup testimony (see, People v. De Tore, 34 N.Y.2d 199, 208, 356 N.Y.S.2d 598, 313 N.E.2d 61, cert. denied sum nom. Wedra v. New York, 419 U.S. 1025, 95 S.Ct. 503, 42 L.Ed.2d 300; People v. Baa, 189 A.D.2d 771, 772, 592 N.Y.S.2d 63; People v. Morales, 113 A.D.2d 956, 493 N.Y.S.2d 853).
In any event, the witness's failure to testify does not warrant reversal. Where the People fail to produce a witness referred to in opening statements, “the general rule is that, absent bad faith or undue prejudice, a trial will not be undone” (People v. De Tore, supra, at 207, 356 N.Y.S.2d 598, 313 N.E.2d 61). The People did not act in bad faith in failing to call the witness to the stand since, as stipulated by the defendant, she was unavailable to testify because of a medical condition. Moreover, any prejudice that may have been caused by the witness's failure to testify was cured by the court's prompt instructions prohibiting the jury from speculating as to what her testimony would have been and by the court's instruction, during preliminary instructions and in the jury charge, that the statements of counsel were not to be considered as evidence (see, People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294, 299, 464 N.Y.S.2d 703, 451 N.E.2d 450; People v. De Tore, supra, at 207-208, 356 N.Y.S.2d 598, 313 N.E.2d 61; People v. Torres, 141 A.D.2d 682, 683, 529 N.Y.S.2d 566).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 17, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)