From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Huggins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 29, 1993
199 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 29, 1993

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Marks, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court properly permitted the victim to testify that, several minutes after he was shot, he told an ambulance attendant that defendant was the person who shot him. The record supports the court's determination that the victim's response to the attendant's question about who shot him constituted an excited utterance (see, People v Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513).

The suppression court did not err in summarily concluding that the pretrial identification of defendant by an eyewitness was confirmatory and that a Wade hearing was not required. The witness had been acquainted with defendant for eight years, and thus, a Rodriguez hearing (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445), a pre- Wade hearing required in certain instances to determine whether the pretrial identification was confirmatory, was not needed.


Summaries of

People v. Huggins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 29, 1993
199 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Huggins

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEROY HUGGINS, Also…

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

Date published: Dec 29, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
606 N.Y.S.2d 496

Citing Cases

People v. Sampson

g to be conducted should be a Rodriguez (or pre- Wade) hearing. At this hearing the police investigators who…

People v. Foster

"`When a crime has been committed by a family member, former friend or long time acquaintance of a witness…