People v. Townes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Townes

122 A.D.2d 92, 504 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59160

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.2d 92 (People v. Townes) 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. Townes, 122 A.D.2d 92, 504 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McMahon, J.), rendered April 24, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Criminal Term properly refused to admit into evidence the out-of-court statement made by a nonparty witness who was unavailable for trial, having asserted his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The subject statement constituted hearsay which was not against the declarant’s penal interest, nor did the surrounding circumstances contain any indicia of reliability. As such, the statement was not admissible pursuant to an exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Shortridge, 65 NY2d 309; People v Maerling, 46 NY2d 289). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Weinstein, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, 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, Westchester County (McMahon, J.), rendered April 24, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Criminal Term properly refused to admit into evidence the out-of-court statement made by a nonparty witness who was unavailable for trial, having asserted his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The subject statement constituted hearsay which was not against the declarant’s penal interest, nor did the surrounding circumstances contain any indicia of reliability. As such, the statement was not admissible pursuant to an exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Shortridge, 65 NY2d 309; People v Maerling, 46 NY2d 289). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Weinstein, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 92, 504 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-townes-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack