People v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 20 January 1972 |
| Citation | 327 N.Y.S.2d 961,38 A.D.2d 772 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hattie HAMPTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Louis Scheinman, Sullivan County Dist. Atty., Monticello (Emanuel Gellman, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), for respondent.
John S. McBride, Monticello, for appellant.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and STALEY, GREENBLOTT, SWEENEY and SIMONS, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment rendered December 16, 1970, convicting defendant of the crime of assault, first degree.
On November 6, 1969, at approximately 9:00 A.M., defendant took her four-year-old daughter to the Liberty Loomis Hospital in Liberty, Sullivan County, New York. On examination it was determined that the child was dead. The child's body was covered with multiple scars and marks, some new and some old. Defendant and her husband were indicted for manslaughter, first degree, in violation of section 125.20 of the Penal Law. A severance was granted and defendant was tried alone. She was convicted of assault, first degree, and received a sentence for a term not to exceed 11 years.
Defendant raises several issues on this appeal. Her first contention is that the court erred in receiving into evidence five photographs taken shortly after 10:00 A.M. on November 6, 1969, of the nude body of the deceased child depicting the various scars and marks. We find no merit in this contention. Introduced into evidence was defendant's signed statement admitting she had struck her daughter on several occasions on days immediately preceding the child's death. She stated in substance that on one occasion she used a leather sandal shoe. The further stated the daughter was a bad child and she had to beat her to make her mind. The marks and scars on the child's body were material to the charges against the defendant. Consequently, the photographs were competent evidence of the appearance of the child, and admissible. (People v. Fish, 125 N.Y. 136, 26 N.E. 319; Cowley v. People, 83 N.Y. 464, 477--480.)
Defendant also maintains that it was error for the court to receive into evidence, over objection, the autopsy report. This report contained the statement that death was caused by (1) traumatic shock and (2) battered child syndrome. It is an established principle of law that certain public records may be received into evidence without offending the hearsay rule or right of confrontation. An autopsy report is such a public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Duncan
...are not admissible.” People v. Violante, 144 A.D.2d 995, 534 N.Y.S.2d 281, 283 (4th Dep't 1988) ; see also People v. Hampton, 38 A.D.2d 772, 327 N.Y.S.2d 961, 962 (3d Dep't 1972) (“An autopsy report is ... a public record and, therefore, admissible. Our courts, however, have not extended th......
-
Kevin G., In re
...the physician whose diagnosis is contained in the record called personally to the witness stand.' See also People v. Hampton, 38 A.D.2d 772, 773, 327 N.Y.S.2d 961, 962 (3rd Dept.), upholding the admission of an autopsy report in a manslaughter prosecution on the basis that: 'It is an establ......
-
Nelson R., Matter of
...293 N.Y. 597, 59 N.E.2d 420, was as much prepared for the purpose of litigation as this ballistics report. (See also People v. Hampton, 38 A.D.2d 772, 327 N.Y.S.2d 961, for admission of an autopsy report.) Such autopsy reports by public officials are rendered for prosecutorial purposes on t......
-
People v. Abney
...error to permit an autopsy report to be admitted at trial without first redacting the opinion as to the cause of death (People v. Hampton, 38 A.D.2d 772, 327 N.Y.S.2d 961), submission of autopsy reports to the Grand Jury without redacting such opinions need not necessarily constitute error.......