People v. Carvalho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carvalho

249 A.D.2d 945, 673 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5051

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 945 (People v. Carvalho) 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

People v. Carvalho, 249 A.D.2d 945, 673 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15). We reject his contention that Supreme Court erred in admitting the testimony of his stepdaughter that his wife exclaimed, “[h]e set the house on fire”, as she ran from the house immediately after the fire

[946]*946started. That testimony was properly admitted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729).

By objecting to the admission of his co-worker’s testimony on a ground different from the ground raised on appeal, defendant failed to preserve his present contention for our review (see, People v Osuna, 65 NY2d 822, 824; People v Avellanet, 242 AD2d 865). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Arson, 2nd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15). We reject his contention that Supreme Court erred in admitting the testimony of his stepdaughter that his wife exclaimed, “[h]e set the house on fire”, as she ran from the house immediately after the fire

[946]*946started. That testimony was properly admitted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729).

By objecting to the admission of his co-worker’s testimony on a ground different from the ground raised on appeal, defendant failed to preserve his present contention for our review (see, People v Osuna, 65 NY2d 822, 824; People v Avellanet, 242 AD2d 865). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Arson, 2nd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 945, 673 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carvalho-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack