People v. Corbin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Corbin

284 A.D.2d 408, 726 N.Y.S.2d 282, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6127

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 408 (People v. Corbin) 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. Corbin, 284 A.D.2d 408, 726 N.Y.S.2d 282, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered April 12, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly refused to charge the jury concerning dying declarations because the statements at issue were admitted both as dying declarations and excited utterances. Unlike dying declarations, excited utterances do not require special instructions to the jury (see, Letendre v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 21 NY2d 518, 524-525). Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Feuerstein and Crane, 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 (Tomei, J.), rendered April 12, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly refused to charge the jury concerning dying declarations because the statements at issue were admitted both as dying declarations and excited utterances. Unlike dying declarations, excited utterances do not require special instructions to the jury (see, Letendre v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 21 NY2d 518, 524-525). Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 408, 726 N.Y.S.2d 282, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-corbin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack