People v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coleman

149 A.D.2d 605, 540 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4980

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

DecidedApril 17, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 605 (People v. Coleman) 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. Coleman, 149 A.D.2d 605, 540 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered December 4, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in refusing to admit into evidence a videotaped statement made by the codefendant which tended to exculpate the defendant. The defendant sought to have the trial court admit the statement on the ground that it constituted an exception to the hearsay rule, as it was a declaration against the declarant’s penal interest. We agree with the trial court, however, that the statement did not meet all of the requirements for admission as a declaration against penal interest since there was no independent proof that the statement contained sufficient indicia of reliability and trustworthiness (see, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154, 167). Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the testimony at trial did. not tend to support or give credence to the codefendant’s statement, but in fact showed the defendant to be an active and willing participant in the robbery. As there was no independent proof of trustworthiness, the statement was properly excluded.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered December 4, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in refusing to admit into evidence a videotaped statement made by the codefendant which tended to exculpate the defendant. The defendant sought to have the trial court admit the statement on the ground that it constituted an exception to the hearsay rule, as it was a declaration against the declarant’s penal interest. We agree with the trial court, however, that the statement did not meet all of the requirements for admission as a declaration against penal interest since there was no independent proof that the statement contained sufficient indicia of reliability and trustworthiness (see, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154, 167). Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the testimony at trial did. not tend to support or give credence to the codefendant’s statement, but in fact showed the defendant to be an active and willing participant in the robbery. As there was no independent proof of trustworthiness, the statement was properly excluded.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 605, 540 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coleman-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack