People v. Heron

179 A.D.2d 678

This text of 179 A.D.2d 678 (People v. Heron) 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. Heron, 179 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

[679]*679Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the complainant’s statement indicating that the inmate in "upper C-l” had injured him was properly admitted in evidence under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see, Richardson, Evidence §§ 281, 282 [Prince 10th ed]; People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, cert denied 362 US 912; People v Linton, 166 AD2d 670). The statement was made within a short time after the defendant seriously wounded the complainant by slashing him with a razor blade, and the surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the statement was not the product of studied reflection (see, People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513, 519), and possessed a high degree of trustworthiness (see, People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 231).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Marks
160 N.E.2d 26 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)
People v. Caviness
342 N.E.2d 496 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
People v. Brown
517 N.E.2d 515 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. Linton
166 A.D.2d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 A.D.2d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-heron-nyappdiv-1992.