People v. Mungo
| Decision Date | 09 October 2001 |
| Citation | 287 A.D.2d 523,731 N.Y.S.2d 632 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>MARCUS MUNGO, Appellant. |
O'Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly admitted the statements made by the decedent naming the defendant as his assailant under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Fratello, 92 NY2d 565, cert denied 526 US 1068; People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513, 522; People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493). The surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the decedent's remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection and that the decedent was still under the continuing stress and excitement of the shooting (see, People v Fratello, supra; People v Cotto, 92 NY2d 68; People v Brown, supra; People v Edwards, supra; People v Johnson, 272 AD2d 555; People v Evans, 183 AD2d 780).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mungo v. Duncan, s. 02-CV-5586 (JBW), 03-MISC-0066 (JBW).
...his sentence was excessive. Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Appellate Division. See People v. Mungo, 287 A.D.2d 523, 731 N.Y.S.2d 632 (2d Dep't 2001). Leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied, and petitioner's application for reconsideration of t......
-
Mungo v. Duncan
...The Appellate Division affirmed, rejecting petitioner's contentions relating to his hearsay objection. People v. Mungo, 287 A.D.2d 523, 731 N.Y.S.2d 632, 632-33 (App. Div.2d Dep't 2001). Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. People v. Mungo, 97 N.Y.2d 685, 738 N.Y.S.2d 301, 76......
- People v. McCready