People v. Nicholas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nicholas

113 A.D.3d 701, 978 N.Y.2d 695

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 A.D.3d 701 (People v. Nicholas) 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. Nicholas, 113 A.D.3d 701, 978 N.Y.2d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence a recording of the complainant’s 911 emergency call under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Dockery, 107 AD3d 913, 913-914 [2013]; People v Clarke, 101 AD3d 897, 897-898 [2012]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s Molineux ruling (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) constituted a provident exercise of discretion. The evidence at issue was admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and to complete the narrative of events, and its probative value exceeded the potential for prejudice to the defendant (see People v Thornton, 105 AD3d 779, 780 [2013]; People v Alke, 90 AD3d 943, 944 [2011]; People v Devaughn, 84 AD3d 1394, 1395 [2011]; People v Phillips, 84 AD3d 1274 [2011]; People v Holden, 82 AD3d 1007 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence a recording of the complainant’s 911 emergency call under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Dockery, 107 AD3d 913, 913-914 [2013]; People v Clarke, 101 AD3d 897, 897-898 [2012]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s Molineux ruling (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) constituted a provident exercise of discretion. The evidence at issue was admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and to complete the narrative of events, and its probative value exceeded the potential for prejudice to the defendant (see People v Thornton, 105 AD3d 779, 780 [2013]; People v Alke, 90 AD3d 943, 944 [2011]; People v Devaughn, 84 AD3d 1394, 1395 [2011]; People v Phillips, 84 AD3d 1274 [2011]; People v Holden, 82 AD3d 1007 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 701, 978 N.Y.2d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nicholas-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack