People v. Wine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wine

279 A.D.2d 424, 719 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 927

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 424 (People v. Wine) 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. Wine, 279 A.D.2d 424, 719 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered December 4, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification.

The tape recordings of the complainant’s 911 calls were properly introduced into evidence as excited utterances (see, People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513, 519-520). Clearly the first call, made immediately after the robbery, was made under the [425]*425excitement and shock of the gunpoint robbery. The record also supports the court’s finding that the second call, 15 minutes later, was still made under the influence of the startling event, and that the complainant did not have a significant opportunity to deviate from the truth while he waited for the police to arrive (see, People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493, 497).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered December 4, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification.

The tape recordings of the complainant’s 911 calls were properly introduced into evidence as excited utterances (see, People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513, 519-520). Clearly the first call, made immediately after the robbery, was made under the [425]*425excitement and shock of the gunpoint robbery. The record also supports the court’s finding that the second call, 15 minutes later, was still made under the influence of the startling event, and that the complainant did not have a significant opportunity to deviate from the truth while he waited for the police to arrive (see, People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493, 497).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 424, 719 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wine-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack