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. Ed SYKES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J.), rendered May 21, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
The trial court properly admitted, as an excited utterance, a declaration made by the nontestifying attendant at a parking garage to his supervisor and friend in which he stated that two cars had just been taken at gunpoint by four men. The evidence, including testimony as to the declarant's demeanor, supported the conclusion that the robbery had just occurred and that the declarant was still under the influence of the stress of the incident (see People v. Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 302, 772 N.Y.S.2d 238, 804 N.E.2d 402 [2003]; People v. Neloms, 8 A.D.3d 136, 779 N.Y.S.2d 26 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 710, 785 N.Y.S.2d 37, 818 N.E.2d 679 [2004]; People v. Soba, 1 A.D.3d 205, 206, 767 N.Y.S.2d 219 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 634, 777 N.Y.S.2d 33, 808 N.E.2d 1292 [2004] ). In any event, were we to find any error in the receipt of this evidence, we would find it to be harmless. Defendant was acquitted of robbery, and the evidence at issue added little or nothing to the proof supporting the charge of criminal possession of stolen property.
Defendant's Confrontation Clause argument and his argument concerning the court's charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 09, 2006
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)