People v. Orth
| Decision Date | 07 February 1994 |
| Citation | 201 A.D.2d 510,607 N.Y.S.2d 415 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Peter ORTH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Robert S. Dean, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Linda Cantoni, and Gonzalo Pinacho, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and ALTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered February 2, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's claim, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to admit into evidence the contents of an emergency "911" telephone call and/or sprint report based upon the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule since there was insufficient corroboration of the contents of the call (see, People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 737, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696, 610 N.E.2d 369). In any event, the contents were irrelevant and untrustworthy with respect to any issue regarding the identity of the perpetrator (see, People v. Smith, 162 A.D.2d 736, 737, 557 N.Y.S.2d 424; People v. O'Connor, 154 A.D.2d 626, 546 N.Y.S.2d 639).
The Supreme Court also properly denied the defendant's application to charge the jury concerning the lesser-included offense of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree since there was no reasonable view of the evidence by which the jury could find that the value of the car was less than $100 (see, People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 173-174, 397 N.Y.S.2d 613, 366 N.E.2d 273; People v. Shuman, 37 N.Y.2d 302, 304, 372 N.Y.S.2d 60, 333 N.E.2d 363).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find that it does not require reversal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vasquez
...People v. Buie, 201 A.D.2d 156, 615 N.Y.S.2d 794, appeal granted 84 N.Y.2d 933, 621 N.Y.S.2d 530, 645 N.E.2d 1230 and People v. Orth, 201 A.D.2d 510, 607 N.Y.S.2d 415 appeal denied 83 N.Y.2d 913, 614 N.Y.S.2d 395, 637 N.E.2d 286), and that there has been no case dealing with the precise iss......
-
State v. Skolar
...an eyewitness), affirmed sub nom, People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561, 647 N.Y.S.2d 697, 670 N.E.2d 1328 (1996); People v. Orth, 201 A.D.2d 510, 607 N.Y.S.2d 415 (2d Dept.1994) (insufficient collaboration of contents of 911, call not admissible); People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 594 N.Y.S.2d 69......
-
People v. Parson
...observations * * * sufficiently corroborated by other evidence" (id., at 734, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696, 610 N.E.2d 369; compare, People v. Orth, 201 A.D.2d 510, 607 N.Y.S.2d 415, lv. denied, 83 N.Y.2d 913, 614 N.Y.S.2d 395, 637 N.E.2d 286). Thus, the two telephone conversations were correctly admit......
- People v. Okehoffurum