Legal Opinion

People v. Nicholas

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

Decided January 15, 2014PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. People v. HoldenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
  3. People v. AlkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
  4. People v. DevaughnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
  5. 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

  1. People v. SamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
  2. People v. SamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API