People v. Purdie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Purdie

27 A.D.3d 668, 810 N.Y.S.2d 685

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 668 (People v. Purdie) 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. Purdie, 27 A.D.3d 668, 810 N.Y.S.2d 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J), rendered September 9, 2003, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s admission into evidence of an audiotape of two telephone calls to the 911 emergency number violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Cato, 22 AD3d 863 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 774 [2006]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 883 [2005]). In any event, even if the audiotape contained “testimonial statements” and thus the Supreme Court erred in admitting it (Crawford v Washington, supra at 36), any error was harmless (see People v McBee, 8 AD3d 500 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, 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 (Starkey, J), rendered September 9, 2003, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s admission into evidence of an audiotape of two telephone calls to the 911 emergency number violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Cato, 22 AD3d 863 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 774 [2006]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 883 [2005]). In any event, even if the audiotape contained “testimonial statements” and thus the Supreme Court erred in admitting it (Crawford v Washington, supra at 36), any error was harmless (see People v McBee, 8 AD3d 500 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 668, 810 N.Y.S.2d 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-purdie-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack