excited utterance exception in New York

2026The court properly admitted the nontestifying victim's statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Hernandez , 28 NY3d 1056, 1057 [2016]; People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]).

2025An out-of-court statement is properly admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule when it is made while the declarant remains under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event ( People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]).

2022Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's challenge to the admission of this testimony under the excited utterance exception is preserved for appellate review. "'A spontaneous declaration or excited utterance—made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event—which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant is an exception to the prohibition on hearsay'" ( People v Morris , 189 AD3d 1077, 1079 , quoting People v Cummings , 31 NY3d 204, 209 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Edwards , 47 NY2d 493, 498 ).

2021"An out-of-court statement is properly admissible under the excited utterance exception when made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication" ( People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302, 306 ; see People v Edwards , 47 NY2d 493, 496-497 ).

2021Even if some or all of the decedent's statements fell within the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay ( see People v Cotto , 92 NY2d 68, 79 ; People v Brooks , 71 NY2d 877, 878 ; People v Brown , 70 NY2d 513, 520-521 ), or were sufficiently corroborated to be considered in opposition to the defendants' motion ( see Merriman v Integrated Bldg.

2020It is well settled that recordings of 911 calls may be admitted into evidence pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule when they are made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and are not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication ( see People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302 , 306 [2003]; People v Brown , 70 NY2d 513, 519-520 [1987]; People v Edwards , 47 NY2d 493 [1979]).

2023During the call, the complainant told the 911 operator "I need the police here, I'm shaking, I'm scared." An objection to the admission of the 911 call would not have been meritorious, because the call was properly admitted "under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule inasmuch as the statements were made while [the complainant] was under the extraordinary stress of" the situation, as well as "under the present sense impression exception . . . because [the call] [was] made while the declarant was perceiving 'the event as it [was] unfolding' " ( People v Jones , 66 AD3d 1442 , 1443

2021Further, that portion of the decedent's mother's 911 call where she repeated what the decedent had told her was admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Vasquez , 88 NY2d 561, 574 ).

2021The statements made to the caseworkers were admitted only to complete the narrative, not for the truth of the matter asserted ( see Matter of Aliyah M. [Lynnise M.] , 159 AD3d 1564 , 1565 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 911 [2018]; see generally People v Medley , 132 AD3d 1255 , 1256 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1110 [2016], reconsideration denied 27 NY3d 967 [2016]), and the statement made to the officer was properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see Matter of Rebecca V. [Diomedes V.] , 180 AD3d 413, 413-414 [1st Dept 2020]; Matter of Kirkpatric

2016Contrary to the mother’s further contention, the court did not err in admitting testimony concerning the child’s out-of-court statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Miller, 115 AD3d 1302, 1303-1304 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1040 [2014]; see generally People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 230-232 [1975]).

2023Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly ruled that certain hearsay statements were not admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Cantave , 21 NY3d 374, 381-382 ; Matter of O'Connor v O'Connor , 202 AD3d 689, 690 ; Matter of Johnson v Johnson , 146 AD3d 954, 955 ).

2021The proponent of the hearsay evidence bears the burden of establishing its admissibility under the excited utterance exception ( see People v Cantave , 21 NY3d at 381 ).

2023Family Court accordingly determined, and we agree, that the mother's out-of-court statements to the trooper were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule because they were made "under the stress and excitement of a startling event and [were] not the product of any reflection and possible fabrication" ( People v Haskins , 121 AD3d 1181 , 1184 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 24 NY3d 1120 [2015]; see People v Cotto , 92 NY2d 68, 79 [1998]; People v Gilmore , 200 AD3d 1184, 1190 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 927 [2022]; Peop

2022Further, the statement in the ambulance was also admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Cotto , 92 NY2d 68, 78-79 ; People v Prashad , 297 AD2d 352 ; People v Armistead , 178 AD2d 607, 608 ).

2015The Supreme Court properly admitted the statements of the decedent that were made within minutes of the stabbing under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Cantave, 21 NY3d 374, 381-382 [2013]; People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 302 [2003]; People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 579 [1996]; People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125, 135 [1986]; People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493 [1979]).

2013Defendant, as the proponent of admission, had, but did not satisfy, the burden of proving that the call fell under the excited utterance exception (People v Brensic, 70 NY2d 9, 14 [1987], citing People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125, 131 [1986]).

2010The court correctly permitted the mother to testify about the victim’s statements immediately after the incident, as these statements were classic examples of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Fratello, 92 NY2d 565, 570 [1998], cert denied 526 US 1068 [1999]).

2007The statement was properly admitted into evidence pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Fratello, 92 NY2d 565, 570 [1998]; People v Melendez, 296 AD2d 424, 424-425 [2002]).

2016Trial courts are accorded “wide discretion” in determining whether the standard of admissibility of such statements has been met, and their rulings “should not be disturbed on appeal” absent an abuse of that discretion (People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 385 [2000]; People v Soriano, 121 AD3d 1419 , 1422 [2014]; People v Whitlatch, 294 AD2d 909, 909 [2002]; People v Moore, 51 Misc 3d 6, 9 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

2003Given the activities of the plaintiff in the one-minute interval between the accident and her statement, which included crying hysterically, bleeding profusely, and picking glass out of her face, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in admitting her hearsay statement into evidence under the excited utterance exception (see People v Fratello, 92 NY2d 565, 570 [1998], cert denied 526 US 1068 [1999]; cf. People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 385 [2000]; People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 579 [1996]).

2016Contrary to the mother’s further contention, the court did not err in admitting testimony concerning the child’s out-of-court statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Miller, 115 AD3d 1302, 1303-1304 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1040 [2014]; see generally People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 230-232 [1975]).

2016Contrary to the mother’s further contention, the court did not err in admitting testimony concerning the child’s out-of-court statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Miller, 115 AD3d 1302, 1303-1304 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1040 [2014]; see generally People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 230-232 [1975]).

2009The statements, which were “ ‘sufficiently corroborated by other evidence’ introduced at trial,” qualified for admission into evidence pursuant to the present sense impression exception (People v Foster, 52 AD3d 957, 961 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 788 [2008], quoting People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734 [1993]) and the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay (see People v Dominick, 53 AD3d 505, 505-506 [2008]; People v Rodriguez, 306 AD2d 686, 688 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]).

1995The court properly denied defendant’s application to introduce an anonymous "911” call where defendant failed to lay any foundation for the admission of the tape under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule and the Court of Appeals had not yet adopted the present sense exception (People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729 ).

2022The Supreme Court also erred in admitting into evidence the hearsay statement of an unidentified woman that a man "wearing all gray had the firearm" as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Cummings , 31 NY3d 204, 209-211 ; People v Thelismond , 180 AD3d 1076, 1078 ).

2022Here, there is no indication in the record that the defendant's son had personally observed the stabbing, and therefore his statements did not qualify under the excited utterance exception ( see People v Cummings , 31 NY3d at 211 ; People v Thelismond , 180 AD3d at 1078 ).

2022"An out-of-court statement is properly admissible under the excited utterance exception when made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication" ( People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]; accord People v Auleta , 82 AD3d 1417, 1418-1419 [3d Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 813 [2011]).

2018In this regard, the allegations reasonably justify the conclusion that the victim's statements to the officer qualify for admission under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302 [2003]), since the statements were made while still under the influence of the stress of the incident ( see People v Johnson, 129 AD3d 486 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1089 [2015]; People v Auleta , 82 AD3d 1417 , 1419 [2011], lv denied [*2] 17 NY3d 813 [2011]; People v Mitchell , 46 AD3d 480 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 842 [2008]), and not under the impetus of studied reflect

2020The record does not establish that the defendant was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 ; see also Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668, 694 ).

2018Finally, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668 ; People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 ).

2014Further, the admission of the contents of the 911 emergency telephone call made by the third person was also proper under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, and did not constitute a confrontation clause violation in any event (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 822, 826-828 [2006]; People v Bradley, 8 NY3d 124, 127-128 [2006]; People v Kenyon, 108 AD3d 933 [2013]; People v Conyers, 33 AD3d 929 [2006]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d at 430 ).

2014Further, the admission of the contents of the 911 emergency telephone call made by the third person was also proper under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, and did not constitute a confrontation clause violation in any event (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 822, 826-828 [2006]; People v Bradley, 8 NY3d 124, 127-128 [2006]; People v Kenyon, 108 AD3d 933 [2013]; People v Conyers, 33 AD3d 929 [2006]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d at 430 ).

2026The declarant made the statement to the officers who arrived on the scene shortly after the shooting at issue ( People v Gantt , 48 AD3d 59, 71 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 765 [2008]).

2015The court properly admitted, under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, statements that the victim made to a man she approached after she emerged from a wooded area in the park where the incident occurred (see People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 302 [2003]; People v Gantt, 48 AD3d 59, 64 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 765 [2008]).

2026The court properly admitted the nontestifying victim's statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Hernandez , 28 NY3d 1056, 1057 [2016]; People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]).

2024Contrary to the defendant's contention, the victim's statement that the defendant had "just" banged her head against the wall was properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule since the record demonstrates that the victim made the statement while she was "still under the stress of excitement" and lacked the reflective capacity essential for fabrication ( People v Hernandez , 28 NY3d 1056, 1057 ; see People v Ortiz , 198 AD3d 924, 927 ).

2015Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court properly admitted in evidence a 911 recording containing the statements of a witness present at the shooting under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Mulligan, 118 AD3d 1372, 1372-1373 [2014]).

2015Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court properly admitted in evidence a 911 recording containing the statements of a witness present at the shooting under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Mulligan, 118 AD3d 1372, 1372-1373 [2014]).

2014Thus, the recordings were admissible pursuant to the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 511 [1995]; People v Foster, 52 AD3d 957, 961 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 788 [2008]), as well as the excited utterance exception (see People v Barnes, 64 AD3d 890, 892 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 858 [2009]; People v Rodriguez, 306 AD2d 686, 688 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]).

2014Thus, the recordings were admissible pursuant to the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 511 [1995]; People v Foster, 52 AD3d 957, 961 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 788 [2008]), as well as the excited utterance exception (see People v Barnes, 64 AD3d 890, 892 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 858 [2009]; People v Rodriguez, 306 AD2d 686, 688 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]).

2016Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the County 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 Cantave, 21 NY3d 374, 381 [2013]; People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 302, 307-308 [2003]; People v Maitland, 136 AD3d 1058 [2016]; People v Whitlock, 95 AD3d 909 [2012]; People v Melendez, 296 AD2d 424 [2002]).

2007The statement was properly admitted into evidence pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Fratello, 92 NY2d 565, 570 [1998]; People v Melendez, 296 AD2d 424, 424-425 [2002]).