People v. Johnson, 272 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Johnson, 272 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Carrasquillo-Fuentes (nyappdiv, 2016-09-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carrasquillo-Fuentes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s further contention in his pro se supplemental brief, the People were not required to establish the woman’s unavailability as a witness at trial inasmuch as “unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite to the admission of statements deemed to be excited utterances” (People v Johnson, 272 AD2d 555, 555 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 854 [2000]; see People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 506 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carrasquillo-Fuentes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s further contention in his pro se supplemental brief, the People were not required to establish the woman’s unavailability as a witness at trial inasmuch as “unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite to the admission of statements deemed to be excited utterances” (People v Johnson, 272 AD2d 555, 555 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 854 [2000]; see People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 506 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Moore
N.Y. App. Term. · 2015 · confidence medium
Further, the injuries exhibited by the victim, most tellingly, a wound from which she was still bleeding, do not support defendant’s assertion that there may well have been “a significant lapse of time between the [statement] and the startling event” (People v Smith, 48 AD3d 298, 299 [2008]; see People v Livrieri, 125 AD3d 579, 579-580 [2015] [911 tape “reveals that the victim was in an agitated state and was still operating under the influence of defendant’s attack, notwithstanding intervening events”]; People v Sykes, 26 AD3d 203, 203 [2006] [while there was no testimony as to th…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Paige
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erroneously permitted statements made by the victim to law enforcement officials to be admitted under the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule (People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493 ; see, People v Johnson, 272 AD2d 555 ; People v Simpson, 238 AD2d 611 ; People v Cannon, 228 AD2d 513 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Mark Johnson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 22, 2000.
272 A.D.2d 555
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered July 23, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On August 28,1996, the complainant was robbed in the vicinity of Flushing and Irving Avenues in Brooklyn. Within a short time thereafter, the complainant flagged down a police vehicle at that intersection. According to the testimony of the police, the complainant was “nervous”, “shocked”, “a little shaken up”, and “stuttering”. He immediately told the police that he had just been robbed at gunpoint, and that his jewelry had been taken. Within moments of these statements, the complainant gave the police a physical description of his assailant. The prosecution moved, in limine, to introduce these statements as excited utterances, and the trial court admitted them over the defendant’s objection.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly admitted the statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Cotto, 92 NY2d 68; People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561). The delay between the robbery and the declarations to the police was not sufficient to destroy the indicia of reliability upon which this hearsay exception rests (see, People v Vasquez, supra; People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513). Furthermore, the unavailability of the declarant is not a prerequisite to the admission of statements deemed to be excited utterances (see, People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 506; People v Cannon, 228 AD2d 513, 514).

[*556] The sentence imposed, was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.