People v. Paige

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paige

283 A.D.2d 445, 723 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4748

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 445 (People v. Paige) 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. Paige, 283 A.D.2d 445, 723 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered October 21, 1999, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erroneously permitted statements made by the victim to law enforcement officials to be admitted under the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule (People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493; see, People v Johnson, 272 AD2d 555; People v Simpson, 238 AD2d 611; People v Cannon, 228 AD2d 513). In any event, any error would have been harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Furtado, 182 AD2d 637). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered October 21, 1999, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erroneously permitted statements made by the victim to law enforcement officials to be admitted under the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule (People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493; see, People v Johnson, 272 AD2d 555; People v Simpson, 238 AD2d 611; People v Cannon, 228 AD2d 513). In any event, any error would have been harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Furtado, 182 AD2d 637). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 445, 723 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paige-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack