Summary
holding that victim's declarations made 2 and ½ hours after a shooting and resulting injuries were nevertheless uttered while he remained under the influence of a startling event and not after a period of reflection or deliberation which might have led him to be untruthful, and thus were properly held to be admissible
Summary of this case from Bryant v. LempkeOpinion
Decided March 31, 1988
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Philip J. Chetta, J.
David P. Greenberg and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.
John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Seymour Roth of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
We do not find error in the admission into evidence of declarant's responses as excited utterances. The record clearly demonstrates that the statements were made before there was "`time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance'" (People v Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513, 518, quoting People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 72). Declarant was critically wounded by the shotgun blast, physically and emotionally traumatized by the shooting and experiencing extreme pain. Although declarant faded in and out of consciousness, he was lucid at the time he made the statements.
Brown involved a 30-minute interval between the shooting and the declaration. Here, we are presented with a 2-to-2 1/2-hour lapse of time. Nevertheless, given the other operative factors, declarant's statements were admissible as excited utterances. We refuse to adopt a rule that fixes an "arbitrary limitation on the permissible period between the event and the excited utterance" (People v Brown, supra, at 520). Although, the statements at issue were induced by questions posed by declarant's nurse, they did not interrupt the stress and excitement of the shooting (see, People v Brown, supra, at 522; People v Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 498-499).
Given the violent nature of the altercation and all the other circumstances surrounding the declarations, we cannot say that the trial court erred in admitting the statements as excited utterances.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.