People v. Larrea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Larrea

251 A.D.2d 113, 674 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6667

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 11, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered March 21, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to two consecutive terms of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

A witness’s screamed intention to “get” the perpetrators was [114] not offered for its truth and thus was not hearsay. In any event, this statement was properly received as an excited utterance, since it was clearly made under the stress of excitement caused by the crime (see, People v Cannon, 228 AD2d 513, 514).

The coúrt properly exercised its discretion by refusing to declare a mistrial based on the jury’s purported deadlock (see, Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243; People v Samper, 239 AD2d 191, lv denied 90 NY2d 910). Defendant failed to preserve his remaining claims concerning the court’s communications with the deliberating jury, each of which requires preservation (see, People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find them to be without merit.

The court’s ruling permitting the People’s cross-examination of defendant as to prior bad acts was a proper exercise of discretion since these acts were highly probative of credibility and the People established a good faith basis for such questioning (see, People v Gray, 84 NY2d 709, 712; People v Kass, 25 NY2d 123, 125-126). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered March 21, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to two consecutive terms of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

A witness’s screamed intention to “get” the perpetrators was [114] not offered for its truth and thus was not hearsay. In any event, this statement was properly received as an excited utterance, since it was clearly made under the stress of excitement caused by the crime (see, People v Cannon, 228 AD2d 513, 514).

The coúrt properly exercised its discretion by refusing to declare a mistrial based on the jury’s purported deadlock (see, Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243; People v Samper, 239 AD2d 191, lv denied 90 NY2d 910). Defendant failed to preserve his remaining claims concerning the court’s communications with the deliberating jury, each of which requires preservation (see, People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find them to be without merit.

The court’s ruling permitting the People’s cross-examination of defendant as to prior bad acts was a proper exercise of discretion since these acts were highly probative of credibility and the People established a good faith basis for such questioning (see, People v Gray, 84 NY2d 709, 712; People v Kass, 25 NY2d 123, 125-126). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

People v. Larrea, 251 A.D.2d 113, 674 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 113 (People v. Larrea) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related