From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued October 30, 2001.

November 19, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered December 15, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Yvonne Shivers of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jane S. Meyers of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, A. GAIL PRUDENTI, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendant from entering into evidence a written statement by his friend, who was present at the scene and had implicated himself as the shooter. 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) when the statement was made the declarant was aware that it was adverse to his penal interest, (3) the declarant had competent knowledge of the facts underlying the statement, and (4), most importantly, supporting circumstances independent of the statement were present to attest to its trustworthiness and reliability (see, People v. Brensic, 70 N.Y.2d 9; People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 167). In this case, the defendant, who carried the burden of establishing the factors necessary to admit a declaration against penal interest, submitted no evidence and made no offer of proof that the friend was unavailable (see, People v. Brensic, supra; People v. Settles, supra). Moreover, the defendant failed to disclose supporting circumstances independent of the statement that would attest to its trustworthiness and reliability (see, People v. Brensic, supra; People v. Settles, supra).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contention does not require reversal.

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, TOWNES and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ALFRED ROBERTS, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 19, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 230

Citing Cases

Roberts v. Phillips

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Roberts' conviction. See People v. Roberts. 288 A.D.2d 403.…

People v. Smyre

The portions of the codefendant's statement regarding defendant's involvement in the crime were not against…