Summary
In Watson, however, the trial court examined a different hearsay exception, the excited utterance, and admitted it as a firmly rooted hearsay exception (see People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125, 131 n 2, 135 [1986]).
Summary of this case from People v. WatsonOpinion
June 21, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.).
The off the record conference before defendant appeared in court did not require defendant's presence. Defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to participate in connection with Sandoval issues when he was later produced, and, in his presence, the court heard argument and ruled on each of the prosecutor's requests (compare, People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254, 267). The court properly refused to permit defendant to exercise his unused peremptory challenges after the jurors from the first panel had been sworn in and the remaining jurors from the second panel accepted (see, People v. Grieco, 266 N.Y. 48, 54-55). The victim's hospital records were properly admitted as a business record (CPLR 4518; see, Williams v. Alexander, 309 N.Y. 283), and defendant was not entitled to an intoxication charge absent evidence that the drugs he ingested before the crime affected his ability to form the necessary criminal intent (see, People v. Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d 918).
Finally, in view of defendant's criminal record, which includes 10 felony convictions, and the violent nature of the crimes charged, it was not unduly harsh to have the sentence run consecutively to a Federal sentence on an unrelated offense (see, People v. Junco, 43 A.D.2d 266, affd 35 N.Y.2d 419, cert denied 421 U.S. 951).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.