People v. Raymond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Raymond

278 A.D.2d 798, 723 N.Y.S.2d 580, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13470

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 798 (People v. Raymond) 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. Raymond, 278 A.D.2d 798, 723 N.Y.S.2d 580, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment [799]*799unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35) and other crimes. Contrary to the contention of defendant, his right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of the victim’s medical records in evidence. Those records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see, CPLR 4518 [a]; White v Illinois, 502 US 346, 356). Defendant further contends that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion. We disagree. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s statement was voluntarily made (see, People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment [799]*799unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35) and other crimes. Contrary to the contention of defendant, his right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of the victim’s medical records in evidence. Those records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see, CPLR 4518 [a]; White v Illinois, 502 US 346, 356). Defendant further contends that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion. We disagree. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s statement was voluntarily made (see, People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 798, 723 N.Y.S.2d 580, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-raymond-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack