Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leonardo LARREA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered March 21, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to two consecutive terms of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
A witness's screamed intention to “get” the perpetrators was not offered for its truth and thus was not hearsay. In any event, this statement was properly received as an excited utterance, since it was clearly made under the stress of excitement caused by the crime (see, People v. Cannon, 228 A.D.2d 513, 514, 644 N.Y.S.2d 311).
The court properly exercised its discretion by refusing to declare a mistrial based on the jury's purported deadlock (see, Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax, 63 N.Y.2d 243, 481 N.Y.S.2d 657, 471 N.E.2d 429; People v. Samper, 239 A.D.2d 191, 657 N.Y.S.2d 640, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 910, 663 N.Y.S.2d 522, 686 N.E.2d 234). Defendant failed to preserve his remaining claims concerning the court's communications with the deliberating jury, each of which requires preservation (see, People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509, 516, 626 N.Y.S.2d 729, 650 N.E.2d 387), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find them to be without merit.
The court's ruling permitting the People's cross-examination of defendant as to prior bad acts was a proper exercise of discretion since these acts were highly probative of credibility and the People established a good faith basis for such questioning (see, People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709, 712, 622 N.Y.S.2d 223, 646 N.E.2d 444; People v. Kass, 25 N.Y.2d 123, 125-126, 302 N.Y.S.2d 807, 250 N.E.2d 219).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 11, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)