You are here: / / 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED U...
,

911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES.

The Second Department determined a 911 call and a prior consistent statement were properly admitted as excited utterances:

… [T]he recording of the 911 call was properly admitted into evidence under the excited utterance and present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule, as the probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect … .

The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor elicited testimony from a police officer and the victim’s niece regarding statements made by the victim’s son at the scene, which improperly bolstered the testimony of the victim’s son identifying the defendant as the shooter. … . If a proffered statement also meets the requirements to be admitted as an excited utterance, its admission would be proper, notwithstanding the characterization as a prior consistent statement … . Here, the Supreme Court properly admitted the testimony of the police officer and the victim’s niece concerning the statements of the victim’s son at the scene identifying the defendant as the shooter under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, and that testimony did not constitute improper bolstering … . People v Chin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01880, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/EXCITED UTTERANCES (CRIMINAL LAW, 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT’s MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE RENTAL-CAR DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RENTAL CAR WAS NOT NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE “GRAVES AMENDMENT,” THE RENTAL CAR DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
Corporations Owned by the Individual Operating the Businesses Were Not the “Alter Ego” of the Individual Owner—Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Met—Corporation Which Leased the Property from the Corporation Which Owned the Property Was Entitled to Compensation for Fixtures
Negligent Supervision Cause of Action Properly Survived Summary Judgment—Question of Fact Raised Whether Criminal Act by Defendant’s Employee Was Foreseeable
THE CJA FORM WAS PUT IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED, WHICH WAS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGE; BUT THE CJA EMPLOYEE WHO TESTIFIED WAS NOT THE EMPLOYEE WHO CREATED THE DOCUMENT; BECAUSE THE CJA EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE DOCUMENT, ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSE ACTION BASED UPON A JANITOR’S CALLING PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER NAMES PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PROOF JANITOR WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR INSUFFICIENT, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DEFAMATION, AND PRIMA FACIE TORT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PROVIDING ILLEGAL HIV MEDICATIONS TO A PHARMACY FOR RESALE: (1) DID NOT CONSTITUTE GRAND LARCENY BECAUSE THE AGENT OF THE PHARMACY TO WHOM THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED KNEW THE DRUGS WERE ILLEGAL AND THAT KNOWLEDGE IS IMPUTED TO THE CORPORATION; AND (2) DID NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL DIVERSION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BECAUSE THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED TO A CORPORATION, NOT TO A PERSON WHO HAD NO MEDICAL NEED FOR THEM. AN UNSEALED COMPILATION OF WIRETAP RECORDINGS CONSTRUCTED FROM SEALED ORIGINALS WAS ADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (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

WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD... POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REM...