People v. Eves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eves

28 A.D.3d 1231, 815 N.Y.S.2d 389

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

DecidedApril 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 1231 (People v. Eves) 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. Eves, 28 A.D.3d 1231, 815 N.Y.S.2d 389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), rendered January 12, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal mischief in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05 [2] ). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly admitted a bystander’s statement in evidence under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (see generally People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 505-509 [1995]; People v Dann, 17 AD3d 1152 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 761 [2005]; People v Ortiz, 1 AD3d 1017,1018 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 632 [2004]). “There was sufficient corroboration, by means of independent proof, of both the contemporaneity and reliability of the out-of-court declaration” (Ortiz, 1 AD3d at 1018; see generally People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 574-575 [1996]; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734-736 [1993]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), rendered January 12, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal mischief in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05 [2] ). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly admitted a bystander’s statement in evidence under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (see generally People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 505-509 [1995]; People v Dann, 17 AD3d 1152 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 761 [2005]; People v Ortiz, 1 AD3d 1017,1018 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 632 [2004]). “There was sufficient corroboration, by means of independent proof, of both the contemporaneity and reliability of the out-of-court declaration” (Ortiz, 1 AD3d at 1018; see generally People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 574-575 [1996]; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734-736 [1993]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 1231, 815 N.Y.S.2d 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eves-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack