Opinion
2014-01-15
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Cleveland NICHOLAS, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Allegra Glashausser of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, Joshua Thomas Foust, and Tanya Hajjar of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Allegra Glashausser of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, Joshua Thomas Foust, and Tanya Hajjar of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), rendered August 18, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence a recording of the complainant's 911 emergency call under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v. Dockery, 107 A.D.3d 913, 913–914, 969 N.Y.S.2d 62; People v. Clarke, 101 A.D.3d 897, 897–898, 957 N.Y.S.2d 164).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court's Molineux ruling ( see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286) constituted a provident exercise of discretion. The evidence at issue was admissible to establish the defendant's motive and to complete the narrative of events, and its probative value exceeded the potential for prejudice to the defendant ( see People v. Thornton, 105 A.D.3d 779, 780, 962 N.Y.S.2d 627; People v. Alke, 90 A.D.3d 943, 944, 935 N.Y.S.2d 96; People v. Devaughn, 84 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 925 N.Y.S.2d 114; People v. Phillips, 84 A.D.3d 1274, 923 N.Y.S.2d 867; People v. Holden, 82 A.D.3d 1007, 918 N.Y.S.2d 773).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.