People v. Carr

Decision Date06 November 2000
Citation716 N.Y.S.2d 59,277 A.D.2d 246
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JAMIE CARR, Appellant.

Sullivan, J.P., S. Miller, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the admission of two 911 emergency telephone number tapes into evidence improperly bolstered the trial testimony of the witness who made those calls. However, one of the tapes was properly admitted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule since it contained the caller's statements concerning his observations of the defendant, made contemporaneously with those observations (see, People v Hutchinson, 255 AD2d 396; People v Thompson, 253 AD2d 717). The other tape was properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule as it contained the caller's statements made immediately after watching the defendant stab the victim (see, People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561; People v Molinari, 252 AD2d 532). Accordingly, the defendant's claim of improper bolstering is without merit (see, People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 511).

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove his defense of justification is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Cherry, 275 AD2d 796). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Carr v. Fischer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 9 Septiembre 2003
    ...and excessive. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8). On November 6, 2000, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction. People v. Carr, 277 A.D.2d 246, 716 N.Y.S.2d 59 (2d Dep't 2000). With respect to the first claim of error, the appellate court held that the first 911 tape was properly admitted und......
  • People v. Mack
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 9 Noviembre 2011
    ...under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v. Coward, 292 A.D.2d 630, 739 N.Y.S.2d 612; People v. Carr, 277 A.D.2d 246, 247, 716 N.Y.S.2d 59). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly admitted the police radio transmission and the tape of the complainant's 911 cal......
  • People v. Bradley
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 Mayo 2010
    ...not constitute improper bolstering ( see People v. Buie, 86 N.Y.2d at 509, 634 N.Y.S.2d 415, 658 N.E.2d 192; People v. Carr, 277 A.D.2d 246, 716 N.Y.S.2d 59; People v. Farrell, 228 A.D.2d 693, 646 N.Y.S.2d 124; People v. Hughes, 228 A.D.2d 618, 645 N.Y.S.2d 493). The defendant's contention ......
  • People v. Shah
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • 18 Enero 2018
    ...Mack , 89 A.D.3d 864, 866, 932 N.Y.S.2d 163 [2011] ; People v. Coward , 292 A.D.2d 630, 630, 739 N.Y.S.2d 612 [2002] ; People v. Carr , 277 A.D.2d 246, 247, 716 N.Y.S.2d 59 [2000] ). Defendant's contention that admitting the complainant's mother's testimony also constituted improper bolster......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT