You are here: / / Anonymous 911 Call Admitted Under Excited Utterance and Present Sense Impression...
,

Anonymous 911 Call Admitted Under Excited Utterance and Present Sense Impression Hearsay Exceptions

The Second Department determined a 911 recording of an anonymous caller was admissible under the excited utterance and present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule and the admission of the recording did not violate defendant’s right to confrontation:

The recording satisfied the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, since it evidenced that the caller was under the influence of the excitement of the incident and lacked the reflective capacity essential for fabrication…. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the recording was also properly admissible as a present sense impression, since the caller’s statements were sufficiently contemporaneous … and were corroborated by the evidence adduced at trial…. Additionally, the admission of the recording did not violate the defendant’s right to confrontation. The call was nontestimonial in nature, since its primary purpose was to obtain an emergency response to the shooting….  People v Dockery, 2013 NY Slip Op 04621, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

You might also like
HERE AN ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS WAS DEEMED NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF POSSESSION OF THE NOTE WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WAS HEARSAY; PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).
ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK FROM BEHIND, NO EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SAFETY CONSULTANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER WORKSITE TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) OR 200–CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
HERE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF EACH NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE INCIDENTS; WHERE A SCHOOL HAS TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING A CLAIM, THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A BAR TO GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILITY PLEA AND FOR FAILING TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Error to Impeach Defendant Re: Failure to Offer Exculpatory Version to Police;... Text Messages Authenticated Because They “Made No Sense” Unless Defendant...