People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 01 December 1986 |
| Citation | 509 N.Y.S.2d 56,125 A.D.2d 320 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Carlton BROWN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stuart Birbach, New York City, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Sarah G. Noll, of counsel; Adam Proujansky, on the brief), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and NIEHOFF, RUBIN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kay, J.), rendered October 7, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant's motion to suppress certain statements.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly determined that both the statements made by the dying victim to his mother and uncle within four minutes of having been shot three times and those made to a police officer at the hospital within 30 minutes of the incident, which implicated the defendant in the shooting, were admissible as spontaneous declarations or excited utterances. The circumstances surrounding the victim's declarations reasonably justify the conclusion that they were uttered while the victim remained under the influence of the stress and excitement precipitated by the shooting and were not made "under the impetus of studied reflection" (People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497, 419 N.Y.S.2d 45, 392 N.E.2d 1229).
While the second set of statements made to the police officer were uttered almost one-half hour after the shooting and in response to questions posed by the officer, the record supports the conclusion that the declarant, who was determined to be in critical condition, suffering from "hemorrhagic shock" and severe pain and whose physical condition was rapidly deteriorating, made them "when emotional excitement continueto dominate and reflective powers still in abeyance" (People v. Edwards, supra, at p. 498, 419 N.Y.S.2d 45, 392 N.E.2d 1229; see, People v. Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d 125, 135, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1, 492 N.E.2d 109; Matter of Lydia K., 112 A.D.2d 306, 491 N.Y.S.2d 752, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 681, 499 N.Y.S.2d 684, 490 N.E.2d 551; People v. McCullough, 73 A.D.2d 310, 425 N.Y.S.2d 982).
Finally, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, a rational trier of fact could properly have found the essential elements of the crime of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
...declarations (see generally, People v. Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d 125, 132-133, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1, 492 N.E.2d 109). The Appellate Division, 125 A.D.2d 320, 509 N.Y.S.2d 56, unanimously affirmed in a memorandum, finding that the record supports the conclusion that the statements were made while O'Neil r......
-
People v. Jaber
...excitement continue[d] to dominate" ( People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d at 498, 419 N.Y.S.2d 45, 392 N.E.2d 1229 ; see People v. Brown, 125 A.D.2d 320, 320, 509 N.Y.S.2d 56, affd 70 N.Y.2d 513, 522 N.Y.S.2d 837, 517 N.E.2d 515 ).The defendant's remaining contention, which is based on the concurr......
-
People v. Brooks
...45, 392 N.E.2d 1229; People v. Flowers, 128 A.D.2d 634, 513 N.Y.S.2d 30, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 1003, 511 N.E.2d 96; People v. Brown, 125 A.D.2d 320, 509 N.Y.S.2d 56, lv. granted 69 N.Y.2d 877, 507 N.E.2d The testimony adduced at the hearing established that the victim was in shock when initi......
-
People v. Brown
...by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this court dated December 1, 1986 (People v. Brown, 125 A.D.2d 320, 509 N.Y.S.2d 56), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 7, 1982, on the ground of ineffective assistance......