From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cowen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1998
255 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 30, 1998

Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the admission into evidence of the tape recording of the victim's entire telephone call to the 911 emergency number was improper ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, since the victim was beaten, bound, gagged, forced to free himself, and had to travel 160 feet to find a telephone, the victim's telephone conversation, which occurred within five minutes after the defendant fled, was properly admitted into evidence because the victim was still under the excitement precipitated by the event and lacked the reflective capacity essential for fabrication ( see, People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513; People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493; People v. Masas, 244 A.D.2d 433; People v. O'Connor, 242 A.D.2d 908; People v. Lewis, 222 A.D.2d 1058).

The defendant made oral and written confessions of his criminal conduct, and there was independent corroborative proof of guilt. There was also undisputed medical testimony establishing a causal link between the defendant's acts and the victim's fatal heart attack approximately one hour after the crime occurred. As a result, 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 ( see, CPL 60.50; People v. Rosner, 67 N.Y.2d 290, 295; Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270; People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).

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

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Cowen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1998
255 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Cowen

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES COWEN, Also…

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

Date published: Nov 30, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 59

Citing Cases

People v. McKinnon

ay and pretrial identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive; that the court erred in admitting in…

People v. Cowen

June 2, 2003. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…