PEOPLE v. ROSS (1997)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Roy ROSS, Appellant.

Decided: March 17, 1997

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and MILLER, RITTER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.

Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Anthea H. Bruffee, Victor Barall, Yasmin Aziz, and David O. Leiwant, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court correctly determined that the statements made to the 911 operator from an anonymous caller qualified as a “present sense impression” inasmuch as they were “spontaneous descriptions of events made substantially contemporaneously with the observation” and “sufficiently corroborated by other evidence” (see, People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696, 610 N.E.2d 369; see also, People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561, 647 N.Y.S.2d 697, 670 N.E.2d 1328; People v. Buie, 86 N.Y.2d 501, 634 N.Y.S.2d 415, 658 N.E.2d 192). Accordingly, the audiotape recording of the 911 call was properly received in evidence at trial under the “present sense impression” exception to the rule against hearsay (see, People v. Brown, supra).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network