People v. Heyward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Heyward

263 A.D.2d 358, 694 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7776

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D.2d 358 (People v. Heyward) 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. Heyward, 263 A.D.2d 358, 694 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered October 24, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of SVa to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The contents of the complainant’s 911 call were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception, since the statements were clearly made under the stress of excitement caused by the crime (see, People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493, 497).

The challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation was proper because it was based on the trial testimony. Defendant had ample opportunity to exploit an inconsistency between the testimony in question and a prior statement, and the effect of [359]*359such inconsistency was a question for the jury. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered October 24, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of SVa to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The contents of the complainant’s 911 call were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception, since the statements were clearly made under the stress of excitement caused by the crime (see, People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493, 497).

The challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation was proper because it was based on the trial testimony. Defendant had ample opportunity to exploit an inconsistency between the testimony in question and a prior statement, and the effect of [359]*359such inconsistency was a question for the jury. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 358, 694 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-heyward-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack