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. Stanley G. Osbourne, appellant.
Submitted-December 4, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), rendered May 23, 2007, convicting him of assault in the first degree, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The admission of an audiotape of an anonymous caller's statements to the 911 emergency telephone operator did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation because the statements were not testimonial (see Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813; People v. Mitchell, 35 AD3d 507; People v. Cato, 22 AD3d 863; People v. Marino, 21 AD3d 430; People v. Coleman, 16 AD3d 254).
Moreover, the 911 tape recording was also properly admitted into evidence under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. The call was made substantially contemporaneously with the caller's finding of the injured complainant (see People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561, 575; People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734; Lee v. City of New York, 40 AD3d 1048, 1049; People v. Neloms, 8 AD3d 136, 137). The substance of the call was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence (see People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d at 734-736; People v. Neloms, 8 AD3d at 137).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., FISHER, BELEN and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2007-05677 (Ind.No. 194 /02)
Decided: January 12, 2010
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)