People v. Blake

278 A.D.2d 887, 718 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13661
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. Testimony from those additional witnesses would have been cumulative (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428; People v Early, 266 AD2d 881, 881-882, lv denied 94 NY2d 918). We reject defendant’s further contention that the court erred in excluding hearsay testimony. The testimony concerned a “recalled or recast description of events that were observed in the recent past,” and thus did not fall within the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 575). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Blake, 278 A.D.2d 887, 718 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

278 A.D.2d 887 (People v. Blake) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Calderon
284 A.D.2d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)