People v. Nicholas — 113 A.D.3d 701

Majority

p. 701

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cleveland Nicholas, Appellant.

[978 NYS2d 695]

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 AD3d 913 , 913-914 [2013]; People v Clarke, 101 AD3d 897 , 897-898 [2012]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s Molineux ruling (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) 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 AD3d 779 , 780 [2013]; People v Alke, 90 AD3d 943 , 944 [2011]; People v Devaughn, 84 AD3d 1394 , 1395 [2011]; People v Phillips, 84 AD3d 1274 [2011]; People v Holden, 82 AD3d 1007 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

People v. Dockery 107 AD3d 913 N.Y. App. Div. 2013-06-19 at 913-914 p. 701
People v. Clarke 101 AD3d 897 N.Y. App. Div. 2012-12-12 at 897-898 p. 701
People v. Molineux 168 NY 264 N.Y. 1901-10-15 p. 701
People v. Alke 90 AD3d 943 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-12-20 at 944 p. 701
People v. Devaughn 84 AD3d 1394 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-05-31 at 1395 p. 701
People v. Phillips 84 AD3d 1274 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-05-24 p. 701
People v. Holden 82 AD3d 1007 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-03-15 p. 701