10 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1893–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Cavinessgreen2 sentences2000Spontaneous declarations, made contemporaneously with or immediately after a startling event, are generally admissible as part of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 231-232 ). 1987In our most recent discussions of the admissibility of excited utterances, we have adhered to the course set in People v Marks (supra) and avoided the strict res gestae analysis in favor of admitting such declarations because "as * * * impul sive and unreflecting responses * * * to the injury or other startling event, they possess a high degree of trustworthiness” (People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 231 [emphasis added]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Marksgreen2 sentences1987In our most recent discussions of the admissibility of excited utterances, we have adhered to the course set in People v Marks (supra) and avoided the strict res gestae analysis in favor of admitting such declarations because "as * * * impul sive and unreflecting responses * * * to the injury or other startling event, they possess a high degree of trustworthiness” (People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 231 [emphasis added]). 1985Defendant’s next arguments concern evidentiary rulings made during the trial, most important of which was the admission of a portion of testimony by Demerest in which she told the jury of a conversation between Doyle and Schiaroli as follows: “Well, I heard * * * [Shiaroli] ask * * * [Doyle], you know, ‘Should we help?’ and * * * [Doyle] said, ‘Yes, Norm [Green] asked us to help him’.” The trial court denied defendant’s objection grounded on irrelevancy and admitted the testimony under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. * Since the statement was obviously made under the stress of th | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sostregreen1 sentence2003The defendant was properly precluded from testifying with respect to statements made by the complainant because they were inadmissible hearsay and did not qualify as an exception under the doctrine of res gestae (see People v Sostre, 70 AD2d 40, 44-45 [1979]). | 1 | 1 |
Baccio v. . the Peoplegreen1 sentence1976However, the witness may not relate details or particular facts of the incident which complainant might have told her (see generally, Richardson, Evidence [10th ed], § 292; see, also, Baccio v People, 41 NY 265 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Loschiavo v. Port Authority
green
2 sentences1989However, we find that this testimony was inadmissible since the oral statement did not qualify as an admission or under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule (see, Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624 , affd 58 NY2d 1040 ). 1984In Loschiavo v Port Auth. ( 86 AD2d 624 , affd 58 NY2d 1040 ), decided subsequent to the decision of Criminal Term, this court listed the present sense impression exception as one of the four types of evidence which can be admitted under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule 8 (cf. Hansell v Galvani, 286 App Div 1019 ). | 2 | 1984–1989 |
Loschiavo v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey
green
2 sentences1989However, we find that this testimony was inadmissible since the oral statement did not qualify as an admission or under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule (see, Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624 , affd 58 NY2d 1040 ). 1984In Loschiavo v Port Auth. ( 86 AD2d 624 , affd 58 NY2d 1040 ), decided subsequent to the decision of Criminal Term, this court listed the present sense impression exception as one of the four types of evidence which can be admitted under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule 8 (cf. Hansell v Galvani, 286 App Div 1019 ). | 2 | 1984–1989 |
People v. Suitte
green
1 sentence2003The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Simmons v. Ricks
green
1 sentence2000Admissibility of a spontaneous declaration is first entrusted to the Trial Judge (see, People v Norton, 79 NY2d 808, 809 ), and since this record contains no evidence to suggest that the statement was anything other than a spontaneous declaration, i.e., it was not the product of studied reflection, Supreme Court properly admitted the statement (see, Simmons v Ricks, 149 AD2d 914 ; Bransfield v Grand Union Co., 24 AD2d 586 , affd 17 NY2d 474 ; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-604, at 638 [Farrell 11th ed]). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Norton
green
1 sentence2000Admissibility of a spontaneous declaration is first entrusted to the Trial Judge (see, People v Norton, 79 NY2d 808, 809 ), and since this record contains no evidence to suggest that the statement was anything other than a spontaneous declaration, i.e., it was not the product of studied reflection, Supreme Court properly admitted the statement (see, Simmons v Ricks, 149 AD2d 914 ; Bransfield v Grand Union Co., 24 AD2d 586 , affd 17 NY2d 474 ; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-604, at 638 [Farrell 11th ed]). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bransfield v. Grand Union Co.
neutral
1 sentence2000Admissibility of a spontaneous declaration is first entrusted to the Trial Judge (see, People v Norton, 79 NY2d 808, 809 ), and since this record contains no evidence to suggest that the statement was anything other than a spontaneous declaration, i.e., it was not the product of studied reflection, Supreme Court properly admitted the statement (see, Simmons v Ricks, 149 AD2d 914 ; Bransfield v Grand Union Co., 24 AD2d 586 , affd 17 NY2d 474 ; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-604, at 638 [Farrell 11th ed]). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bransfield v. Grand Union Co.
neutral
1 sentence2000Admissibility of a spontaneous declaration is first entrusted to the Trial Judge (see, People v Norton, 79 NY2d 808, 809 ), and since this record contains no evidence to suggest that the statement was anything other than a spontaneous declaration, i.e., it was not the product of studied reflection, Supreme Court properly admitted the statement (see, Simmons v Ricks, 149 AD2d 914 ; Bransfield v Grand Union Co., 24 AD2d 586 , affd 17 NY2d 474 ; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-604, at 638 [Farrell 11th ed]). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Chisjoe, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead
green
1 sentence1984In Loschiavo v Port Auth. ( 86 AD2d 624 , affd 58 NY2d 1040 ), decided subsequent to the decision of Criminal Term, this court listed the present sense impression exception as one of the four types of evidence which can be admitted under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule 8 (cf. Hansell v Galvani, 286 App Div 1019 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence1984The present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule contained in the proposed New York Code of Evidence is identical to the present sense impression exception contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence (see People v Watson, 109 Misc 2d 71, 73 ). . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Hatch v. . Elkins
neutral
1 sentence1967The critical writing of July 9, 1963 was, in my view, properly admissible even under appellant’s narrow construction of the res gestae rule of Hatch v. Elkins ( 65 N. Y. 489 ),. and under the privity of obligation con cept as well (4 Wigmore, Evidence, [3d ed.], § 1077). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Luby v. . the Hudson River Railroad Company
green
1 sentence1955Co. ( 17 N. Y. 131 ) where the court considered the application of the so-called res gestae rule to declarations of an agent or servant. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Waldele v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.
green
1 sentence1893Whitaker v. Railroad Co., 51 N. Y. 295 ; Waldele v. Railroad Co., 95 N. Y. 274 ; Martin v. Railroad Co., 103 N. Y. 626 , 9 N. E. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Whitaker v. . Eighth Avenue R.R. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1893Whitaker v. Railroad Co., 51 N. Y. 295 ; Waldele v. Railroad Co., 95 N. Y. 274 ; Martin v. Railroad Co., 103 N. Y. 626 , 9 N. E. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Martin v. . N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1893Whitaker v. Railroad Co., 51 N. Y. 295 ; Waldele v. Railroad Co., 95 N. Y. 274 ; Martin v. Railroad Co., 103 N. Y. 626 , 9 N. E. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.