People v. Ross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ross

237 A.D.2d 467, 655 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2566

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 1997·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court correctly determined that the statements made to the 911 operator from an anonymous caller qualified as a "present sense impression” inasmuch as they were "spontaneous descriptions of events made substantially contemporaneously with the observation” and "sufficiently corroborated by other evidence” (People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734; see also, People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561; People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501). Accordingly, the audiotape recording of the 911 call was properly received in evidence at trial under the "present sense impression” exception to the rule against hearsay (see, People v Brown, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, 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 (Hall, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court correctly determined that the statements made to the 911 operator from an anonymous caller qualified as a "present sense impression” inasmuch as they were "spontaneous descriptions of events made substantially contemporaneously with the observation” and "sufficiently corroborated by other evidence” (People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734; see also, People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561; People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501). Accordingly, the audiotape recording of the 911 call was properly received in evidence at trial under the "present sense impression” exception to the rule against hearsay (see, People v Brown, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Ross, 237 A.D.2d 467, 655 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 467 (People v. Ross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related