People v. Figueroa
Decision Date | 13 February 2007 |
Docket Number | 213. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 01216,37 A.D.3d 246,830 N.Y.S.2d 80 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FRANK FIGUEROA, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In an effort to cast doubt on the People's theory that this crime involved rival drug dealers, defendant offered, as a dying declaration, evidence that while en route to the hospital the deceased said to the officer, After an extensive hearing outside the jury's presence, the court properly determined that this statement did not qualify as a dying declaration. At the time the statement was made, the condition of the deceased, who sustained a gunshot wound to his abdomen, appeared to have stabilized. He was breathing normally and there is no indication that at the time the statement was made, he was "under a sense of impending death, with no hope of recovery" (People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125, 132 [1986]). While the deceased made a remark to a witness immediately after the shooting that might be viewed as suggesting a sense of impending death, the alleged dying declaration occurred later, after the deceased had received medical aid.
Since defendant based his application to introduce the alleged dying declaration entirely on state evidentiary law and never asserted a constitutional right to introduce it, his present constitutional claim is unpreserved (see e.g. People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court did not violate defendant's right to present a defense (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]), especially in light of the unreliability and minimal exculpatory value of this evidence.
Defendant's claim that the statement qualified as an excited utterance is likewise unpreserved and unavailing. The record indicates that the statement was the product of "studied reflection" (People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]). Trial counsel's failure to offer the statement as an excited...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Figueroa v. Ercole
...Appellate Division, First Department (“Appellate Division”), which unanimously affirmed his convictions on February 13, 2007. Figueroa I, 830 N.Y.S.2d at 81. The Appellate Division rejected two of Figueroa's claims as unpreserved: (1) that the Trial Court violated his Sixth Amendment right ......
-
People v. Yuson
...v. Bassett, 55 A.D.3d 1434, 1435, 866 N.Y.S.2d 473, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 922, 874 N.Y.S.2d 7, 902 N.E.2d 441 ; People v. Figueroa, 37 A.D.3d 246, 247, 830 N.Y.S.2d 80, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 984, 838 N.Y.S.2d 487, 869 N.E.2d 663 ).It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unan......
- 319 Smile Corp. v. Forman Fifth, LLC
-
People v. Figueroa
...663 8 N.Y.3d 984 PEOPLE v. FIGUEROA (Frank). Court of Appeals of the State of New York. May 11, 2007. Appeal from the 1st Dept.: 37 A.D.3d 246, 830 N.Y.S.2d 80 Application for leave to criminal appeal denied. (Jones, J) ...
-
Hearsay rule
...to hearsay rule, the declarant must believe that death is imminent and inevitable with no hope of recovery. People v. Figueroa , 37 A.D.3d 246, 830 N.Y.S.2d 80 (N.Y.A.D., 2007). The victim’s statement while en route to the hospital did not qualify for admission under hearsay exception for d......
-
Hearsay rule
...to hearsay rule, the declarant must believe that death is imminent and inevitable with no hope of recovery. People v. Figueroa , 37 A.D.3d 246, 830 N.Y.S.2d 80 (N.Y.A.D., 2007). The victim’s statement while en route to the hospital did not qualify for admission under hearsay exception for d......
-
Hearsay Rule
...to hearsay rule, the declarant must believe that death is imminent and inevitable with no hope of recovery. People v. Figueroa , 37 A.D.3d 246, 830 N.Y.S.2d 80 (N.Y.A.D., 2007). The victim’s statement while en route to the hospital did not qualify for admission under hearsay exception for d......
-
Hearsay Rule
...to hearsay rule, the declarant must believe that death is imminent and inevitable with no hope of recovery. People v. Figueroa , 37 A.D.3d 246, 830 N.Y.S.2d 80 (N.Y.A.D., 2007). The victim’s statement while en route to the hospital did not qualify for admission under hearsay exception for d......