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. Tejpal SINGH, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered December 14, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In order for a declaration against penal interest to be admissible at trial, the proponent must establish that (1) the declarant was unavailable as a witness at trial; (2) the declarant was aware that the statement was adverse to his or her penal interest when made; (3) the declarant had competent knowledge of the facts underlying the statement; and (4) “most important, supporting circumstances independent of the statement itself must be present to attest to its trustworthiness and reliability” (People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 167, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 385 N.E.2d 612; see People v. Linyear, 25 A.D.3d 811, 807 N.Y.S.2d 651).
Here, the Supreme Court properly precluded the out-of-court statements of four witnesses, finding that the statements did not qualify for admission as declarations against penal interest because the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that the declarants knew that their statements were, in fact, against their penal interests (see People v. Carter, 276 A.D.2d 347, 714 N.Y.S.2d 459; People v. Raife, 250 A.D.2d 864, 674 N.Y.S.2d 377). The statements, which were largely exculpatory and made under circumstances which suggest that they were intended to minimize each declarant's criminal involvement, were not clearly opposed to each declarant's penal interest (see People v. Martin, 8 A.D.3d 883, 780 N.Y.S.2d 640; People v. Raife, 250 A.D.2d 864, 674 N.Y.S.2d 377).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor abused her discretion by denying immunity to a defense witness is without merit (see CPL 50.30; People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 32, 499 N.Y.S.2d 638, 490 N.E.2d 505; People v. Williams, 169 A.D.2d 798, 566 N.Y.S.2d 520).
Thank you for your feedback!
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: January 15, 2008
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.
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)