People v. Heron

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the complainant’s statement indicating that the inmate in "upper C-l” had injured him was properly admitted in evidence under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see, Richardson, Evidence §§ 281, 282 [Prince 10th ed]; People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67 , cert denied 362 US 912 ; People v Linton, 166 AD2d 670 ). The statement was made within a short time after the defendant seriously wounded the complainant by slashing him with a razor blade, and the surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the statement was not the product of studied reflection (see, People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513 , 519), and possessed a high degree of trustworthiness (see, People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227 , 231).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.