In re Marco M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marco M.

158 A.D.2d 342, 551 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1379

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 13, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 342 (In re Marco M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Marco M., 158 A.D.2d 342, 551 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to appellant’s contention, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had offered and agreed to engage in sexual conduct for a fee. The police officer testified that a second individual made the offer and appellant nodded in agreement, that appellant voluntarily entered the un[343]*343marked police van with the officer and unequivocally responded to the officer’s statement that he wanted "to get laid, but [not] shortchanged” by stating that it was "no problem. You’ll have a good time.” The officer also testified that he discussed the fee directly with appellant.

Appellant also argues that the court improperly admitted the statements of the second individual, who did not testify, in violation of his right of confrontation. However, as the evidence showed that appellant had adopted the statements in furtherance of the crime, the statements were properly admitted as admissions (Richardson, Evidence §251 [Prince 10th ed]; Rudolph v Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 251 NY 208). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Contrary to appellant’s contention, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had offered and agreed to engage in sexual conduct for a fee. The police officer testified that a second individual made the offer and appellant nodded in agreement, that appellant voluntarily entered the un[343]*343marked police van with the officer and unequivocally responded to the officer’s statement that he wanted "to get laid, but [not] shortchanged” by stating that it was "no problem. You’ll have a good time.” The officer also testified that he discussed the fee directly with appellant.

Appellant also argues that the court improperly admitted the statements of the second individual, who did not testify, in violation of his right of confrontation. However, as the evidence showed that appellant had adopted the statements in furtherance of the crime, the statements were properly admitted as admissions (Richardson, Evidence §251 [Prince 10th ed]; Rudolph v Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 251 NY 208). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 342, 551 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marco-m-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack