People v. Hutchinson

• Decision Date: 05 December 2018
• Docket Number: 2014–07793,Ind.No. 938/13
• Citation: 167 A.D.3d 653,88 N.Y.S.3d 496
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Omar HUTCHINSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

167 A.D.3d 653

88 N.Y.S.3d 496

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Omar HUTCHINSON, Appellant.

2014–07793

Ind.No. 938/13

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—November 9, 2018

December 5, 2018

The Legal Aid Society, New York, N.Y. (William B. Carney of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Rachel N. Houle of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SANDRA L. SGROI, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L. Buchter, J.), rendered July 29, 2014, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to admit into evidence a recording of the complainant's telephone call to the 911 emergency number under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, since the complainant's statements were sufficiently contemporaneous with the events being described (see People v. George, 79 A.D.3d 1148, 1148, 913 N.Y.S.2d 569 ; People v. York, 304 A.D.2d 681, 681, 757 N.Y.S.2d 495 ) and were sufficiently corroborated by the evidence adduced at trial (see People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561, 575–576, 647 N.Y.S.2d 697, 670 N.E.2d 1328 ; People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696, 610 N.E.2d 369, affd 20 N.Y.3d 75, 955 N.Y.S.2d 846, 979 N.E.2d 1173 ).

We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination to admit into evidence the recording of the call to the 911 emergency number placed by the complainant's wife. The portions of the call in which the complainant's wife relayed information she personally experienced were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, since the recording evidenced that she was under the influence of the excitement of the incident and lacked the reflective capacity essential for fabrication (see People v. Cummings, 31 N.Y.3d 204, 75 N.Y.S.3d 484, 99 N.E.3d 877 ; People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497, 419 N.Y.S.2d 45, 392 N.E.2d 1229 ; People v. Dominick, 53 A.D.3d 505, 505–506, 862 N.Y.S.2d 520 ). The portions of the call in which she relayed information provided to her by the complainant were properly admitted to show her state of mind (see People v. Gibian, 76 A.D.3d 583, 585–586, 907 N.Y.S.2d 226 ). Although the defendant...