People v. Adames
| Decision Date | 01 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2005-05976,2005-05976 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMIE ADAMES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the recorded telephone conversations between the codefendant and an undercover police officer, in which the logistics for the subject criminal drug transaction were arranged, were properly admitted into evidence. These conversations did not constitute hearsay, but rather, represented part of the criminal res gestae (see People v Santos, 38 AD3d 574 [2007], cert denied 552 US ___, 128 S Ct 399 [2007]; People v Thompson, 186 AD2d 768 [1992]; see also People v Rastelli, 37 NY2d 240, 244 [1975], cert denied 423 US 995 [1975]).
The challenged statements also fit within the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 148 [2005]). Although the defendant was not charged with conspiracy, the statements were admissible because they were introduced to prove the commission of the substantive crime (id.). Furthermore, the People met their burden of establishing a prima facie case that the defendant and the codefendant had conspired to sell cocaine to the undercover officer (see People v Stewart, 173 AD2d 877 [1991]).
Finally, the admission of the codefendant's statements did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation because those statements were not testimonial (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]; People v Goldstein, 6 NY3d 119 [2005], cert denied 547 US 1159 [2006]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Guy
...facie case of the substantive crime ( see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 148, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005]; People v. Adames, 53 A.D.3d 503, 503, 862 N.Y.S.2d 80 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 895, 873 N.Y.S.2d 271, 901 N.E.2d 765 [2008] ). The offer of proof here was limited, and d......
-
People v. Green
...gestae and, thus, are not hearsay in the first instance ( see People v. Taylor, 82 A.D.3d 1016, 1017, 919 N.Y.S.2d 62; People v. Adames, 53 A.D.3d 503, 862 N.Y.S.2d 80), let alone testimonial hearsay. Similarly, to the extent that the expert testimony based on the wiretap transcripts was no......
-
People v. Robles
...the statements of the second accomplice during that conversation were not themselves testimonial in nature ( see People v. Adames, 53 A.D.3d 503, 862 N.Y.S.2d 80, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 895, 873 N.Y.S.2d 271, 901 N.E.2d 765; see generally Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1......
-
People v. Rackett
...gestae of the alleged extortion. See: People v. Taylor, 82 AD3d 1016, 919 N.Y.S.2d 62 (2nd Dept. 2011); People v. Adamses, 53 AD3d 503, 862 N.Y.S.2d 80 (2nd Dept. 2008) lv. den. 11 NY3d 895, 873 N.Y.S.2d 271 (2008) Based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that the Information serves......