People v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goodman

59 A.D.2d 896, 399 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14092

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 896 (People v. Goodman) 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. Goodman, 59 A.D.2d 896, 399 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 18, 1974, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issues have been raised with respect to the fact findings. The defendant presented a justification defense; it was his claim that he believed that the victim had been hired to kill him and that, at the time of the stabbing, the victim had been reaching for a gun. The defendant offered to have a witness testify that she had heard the defendant being told that someone had been hired to burn his car; this testimony was excluded. The fact that the defendant had [897]*897heard such a statement could circumstantially indicate his state of mind (cf. People v Harris, 209 NY 70; People v Wood, 126 NY 249). "Where the mere fact that a statement was made, as distinguished from its truth or falsity, is relevant upon trial, evidence that such statement was made is original evidence, not hearsay” (Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], § 203). Furthermore, the defendant should have been allowed to explain the meaning of what he claimed to be a "ghetto slang” phrase (see People v Irvine, 40 AD2d 560). Damiani, J. P., Hawkins, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 18, 1974, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issues have been raised with respect to the fact findings. The defendant presented a justification defense; it was his claim that he believed that the victim had been hired to kill him and that, at the time of the stabbing, the victim had been reaching for a gun. The defendant offered to have a witness testify that she had heard the defendant being told that someone had been hired to burn his car; this testimony was excluded. The fact that the defendant had [897]*897heard such a statement could circumstantially indicate his state of mind (cf. People v Harris, 209 NY 70; People v Wood, 126 NY 249). "Where the mere fact that a statement was made, as distinguished from its truth or falsity, is relevant upon trial, evidence that such statement was made is original evidence, not hearsay” (Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], § 203). Furthermore, the defendant should have been allowed to explain the meaning of what he claimed to be a "ghetto slang” phrase (see People v Irvine, 40 AD2d 560). Damiani, J. P., Hawkins, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 896, 399 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goodman-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack