People v. Huggins

199 A.D.2d 1025, 606 N.Y.S.2d 496
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 29, 1993·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court properly permitted the victim to testify that, several minutes after he was shot, he told an ambulance attendant that defendant was the person who shot him. The record supports the court’s determination that the victim’s response to the attendant’s question about who shot him constituted an excited utterance (see, People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513).

The suppression court did not err in summarily concluding that the pretrial identification of defendant by an eyewitness was confirmatory and that a Wade hearing was not required. The witness had been acquainted with defendant for eight years, and thus, a Rodriguez hearing (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445), a pre-Wade hearing required in certain instances to determine whether the pretrial identification was confirmatory, was not needed. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—Assault, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

People v. Huggins, 199 A.D.2d 1025, 606 N.Y.S.2d 496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

199 A.D.2d 1025 (People v. Huggins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Sampson
173 Misc. 2d 444 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
People v. Foster
217 A.D.2d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)