People v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 03 July 1979
• Citation: 47 N.Y.2d 493,392 N.E.2d 1229,419 N.Y.S.2d 45
• Parties: , 392 N.E.2d 1229 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward EDWARDS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 45

419 N.Y.S.2d 45

47 N.Y.2d 493, 392 N.E.2d 1229

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward EDWARDS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 3, 1979.

Philip L. Weinstein and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (John O'Donnell, Robert M. Pitler and Brian Rosner, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COOKE, Chief Judge.

Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law, § 125.25), in connection with the brutal stabbing of 72-year-old Edna Boose. On appeal, he maintains that the admission into evidence of statements, identifying him as the attacker, made by Mrs. Boose while and immediately after being stabbed constituted reversible error. The order of the Appellate Division upholding the conviction should be affirmed. The statements of Mrs. Boose were properly received in evidence as spontaneous declarations, notwithstanding that some of them were made in response to questions posed by a person coming to her aid.

The victim resided with her husband in a fourth floor apartment in Manhattan. Defendant, who had previously resided with the couple, was well known in the neighborhood. To support himself, defendant sold watermelon slices in front of his brother Rudy's store on the ground floor of the apartment building and used a knife and an ice pick in his business.

On the morning of the crime, defendant was observed in the lobby of the building. One hour later as Charles Simpson, Mrs. Boose's brother and next door neighbor, was returning to his apartment, he heard muffled screams emanating from his sister's rooms. Drawn by the sound of his sister's voice, Simpson approached her apartment door and inquired, "What is the matter, Edna?". A voice he identified as that of his sister cried out, "Please help me get out. Somebody get me out." Mr. Eddie is trying to kill me. " Simpson shouted "What?" and the deceased screamed, "Eddie, Rudy's brother downstairs. " As Mrs. Boose screamed for assistance, Simpson pushed on the door causing it to open slightly. However, it was immediately slammed shut and locked.

Simpson repaired to his own apartment to drop off some packages and returned to his sister's aid. Finally, after strenuous effort, he forced the apartment door open. Simpson quickly pulled his sister, an ice pick without its handle protruding from her chest, through the apartment door. While being dragged into the hallway, Mrs. Boose told her brother, "Don't go in there." Simpson asked, "What is the matter?" and the deceased replied, "Eddie will kill you." Defendant was observed hurrying down the fire escape immediately after the crime. A knife and an ice pick handle were found in a flower pot on the fire escape.

At trial, defendant objected to the introduction of the statements of Mrs. Boose on the ground that they constituted inadmissible hearsay. The hearsay rule, of course, forbids the use of an assertion made out of court as testimony to the truth of the fact asserted (Richardson, Evidence (10th ed. Prince), § 201; People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 166, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 881, 385 N.E.2d 612, 619). However, exceptions to this general exclusion have arisen in instances where there is a genuine necessity for the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the out-of-court statement assure its trustworthiness. Statements admitted pursuant to these exceptions derive their vitality not from the veracity of the declarant, but rather from their relation to the transaction from which they spring (see 6 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 1747).

One of the better-known exceptions to the injunction against the reception of hearsay testimony permits the introduction of a spontaneous declaration or excited utterance ¹ made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant (see People v. Caviness, 38 N.Y.2d 227, 231-232, 379 N.Y.S.2d 695, 699-701, 342 N.E.2d 496, 499-500; People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 71-72, 188 N.Y.S.2d 465, 467-468, 160 N.E.2d 26, 27-28, cert. den. 362 U.S. 912, 80 S.Ct. 662, 4 L.Ed.2d 620; Fisch, New York Evidence (2d ed.), § 1000). Underlying this exception is the assumption that a person under the influence of the excitement precipitated by an external startling event will lack the reflective capacity essential for fabrication and, accordingly, any utterance he makes will be spontaneous and trustworthy (but see Hutchins & Slesinger, Some Observations on the Law of Evidence: Spontaneous Exclamations, 28 Col.L.Rev. 432, 437). Since the utterance is made as a direct result of sensory perception during that brief period when considerations of self-interest cannot be immediately brought to bear, the declaration may be admitted into evidence as expressing the true belief of the declarant as to the facts observed (People v. Marks, supra; Richardson, Evidence (10th ed. Prince), § 281).

The admissibility of an excited utterance is entrusted in the first instance to the trial court. In making that determination, the court must ascertain whether, at the time the utterance was made, the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by an external event sufficient to still his reflective faculties, thereby preventing opportunity for deliberation which might lead the declarant to be untruthful. The court must assess not only the nature of the startling event and the amount of time which has elapsed between the occurrence and the statement, but also the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth. Above all, the decisive factor is whether the surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection.

Tested by these criteria, we find no error in the admission of the statements of Mrs. Boose. The first set of statements in which defendant was identified as her attacker obviously were made when the victim was under the excitement and shock of being repeatedly stabbed in the chest with an ice pick. The second set of statements, confirming the victim's identification of defendant as her killer, followed hard upon the same event a vicious stabbing certain to produce the utmost in excitement and shock, thus ensuring the spontaneity of the utterance. Evidence, independent of the statements themselves, verified that the startling events had actually occurred. And, while these latter declarations were uttered after the attack had subsided, the declaration need not be coincident in time with the startling event (see Scheir v. Quirin, 77 App.Div. 624, 78 N.Y.S.2d 956, affd. 177 N.Y. 568, 69 N.E. 1130; United States v. Napier, 9 Cir., 518 F.2d 316, ...