Opinion
November 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the victim's statements, in which he identified the defendant by name, were excited utterances since they were uttered during the shooting which culminated in the victim's death. Therefore, the trial court properly permitted eyewitnesses to testify to the statements (see, People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497).
Moreover, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting testimony regarding the defendant's prior threats against the victim and his prior attempt to shoot the victim (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233). The evidence was admissible to establish the defendant's intent, and to complete the narrative of events to assist the jury in its comprehension of the crime (see, People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932; see also, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. DeLeon, 177 A.D.2d 641). Ritter, J.P., Copertino, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.