People v. Nicholas
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence a recording of the complainant’s 911 emergency call under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Dockery, 107 AD3d 913, 913-914 [2013]; People v Clarke, 101 AD3d 897, 897-898 [2012]).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s Molineux ruling (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) constituted a provident exercise of discretion. The evidence at issue was admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and to complete the narrative of events, and its…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- People v. HoldenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. AlkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. DevaughnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. DockeryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. SamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. SamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016