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, etc., respondent, v. Frank FERNANDES, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered May 8, 2007, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant's statement, taken after he was placed in custody but before Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) were given, was made voluntarily and spontaneously and was not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent (see People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 294, 425 N.Y.S.2d 295, 401 N.E.2d 405; People v. Nevone, 258 A.D.2d 944, 687 N.Y.S.2d 918; People v. Harrison, 251 A.D.2d 681, 677 N.Y.S.2d 794; People v. Zanders, 241 A.D.2d 531, 663 N.Y.S.2d 983).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly admitted into evidence a statement made by the complainant's then-10-year-old daughter shortly after she witnessed the subject crime and struggled with the defendant over the weapon used in the crime, under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497, 419 N.Y.S.2d 45, 392 N.E.2d 1229; People v. Donahue, 50 A.D.3d 820, 821, 854 N.Y.S.2d 653; People v. Rodriguez, 306 A.D.2d 686, 688, 761 N.Y.S.2d 368).
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: May 05, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)