From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Worrol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 18, 1997
242 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

September 18, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.).


The court properly admitted the victim's explanation of the stabbing under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. Inasmuch as the victim was seriously injured, collapsed in the middle of the street, was bleeding profusely, could not breathe, was in severe pain, and made the statement minutes after the stabbing, there is little question that she uttered it under the stress of nervous excitement resulting from an injury that prevented any opportunity for deliberation which might have led her to be untruthful ( People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497).

The court properly denied defendant's application to admit his videotaped statement claiming self-defense. The prosecutor did not open the door to its admission by eliciting evidence of defendant's earlier, inconsistent statement made to the police the day after the stabbing inasmuch as defendant made the videotaped statement after he was arrested, when he had a motive to lie ( People v. Seit, 86 N.Y.2d 92, 96). Defendant's remaining arguments on this issue are without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Colabella, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Worrol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 18, 1997
242 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Worrol

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. MICHAEL WORROL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Sep 18, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
662 N.Y.S.2d 310

Citing Cases

People v. Diaz

We have held that even if a statement was correctly considered an excited utterance under our rules of…