People v. Kourani

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Bryant

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 1194 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    There is no merit to the defendant's contentions that his rights to confrontation and a fair trial were violated when the trial court allowed the People to elicit hearsay statements that a nontestifying codefendant had made to a detective. The defense counsel opened the door to such testimony (see People v Simpson, 256 A.D.2d 205, 206; People v Kourani, 256 A.D.2d 620, 622). In addition, the testimony at issue was not received for its truth, but, rather, to rebut the testimony of the defendant that his own confession was coercively derived (see Tennessee v Street, 471 U.S. 409; People v Reynoso, 2 N.Y.3d 820; People v Ewell, 12 A.D.3d 616, 617; People v Garcia, 2 A.D.3d 321, 322).

  2. State v. Bryant

    39 A.D.3d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 42 times

    There is no merit to the defendant's contentions that his rights to confrontation and a fair trial were violated when the trial court allowed the People to elicit hearsay statements that a nontestifying codefendant had made to a detective. The defense counsel opened the door to such testimony ( see People v Simpson, 256 AD2d 205, 206; People v Kourani, 256 AD2d 620, 622). In addition, the testimony at issue was not received for its truth, but, rather, to rebut the testimony of the defendant that his own confession was coercively derived ( see Tennessee v Street, 471 US 409; People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820; People v Ewell, 12 AD3d 616, 617; People v Garcia, 2 AD3d 321, 322).

  3. People v. Rodriguez

    28 A.D.3d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 8 times

    05; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20; People v. Cato, 22 AD3d 863, lv denied 6 NY3d 774). In any event, the prosecution was properly permitted to question Detective Kevin Smith about the knowledge he derived from other persons for the nonhearsay purpose of rebutting the defense argument that the detective had fabricated portions of the defendant's second written statement (see Tennessee v. Street, 471 US 409, 414; People v. Reynoso, 309 AD2d 769, 770-771, affd 2 NY3d 820; People v. Rodriguez, 210 AD2d 266), and further, the defense had already opened the door to the prosecutor's inquiry (see People v. Massie, 2 NY3d 179, 183-184; People v. Summers, 20 AD3d 546; People v. Reynoso, supra at 770; People v. Kourani, 256 AD2d 620, 622). The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's comments on summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944; People v. Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881; People v. Hudgins, 20 AD3d 489, 490, lv denied 5 NY3d 853).