Opinion
January 13, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant argues that the statement, "Save me, it's a thief", made by the deceased seconds after he was fatally shot during an attempted robbery, was improperly admitted into evidence. We find the statement was properly admitted as a spontaneous declaration. It is well established that spontaneous declarations made by a declarant while he is under the stress of nervous excitement precipitated by an external startling event, and during that brief period when considerations of self-interest cannot be immediately brought to bear, possess a high degree of trustworthiness and are, therefore, admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule (People v Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493). Here the court found that the declarant was under the stress of the trauma caused by the shooting and that the declaration followed so closely after that event as to preclude the opportunity for deliberation, fabrication, or design (see, People v O'Neall, 47 N.Y.2d 952). The court thus properly admitted the statement into evidence.
The trial court also properly denied defendant's motion to suppress certain statements made to the arresting officer and to an Assistant District Attorney. Defendant sought to suppress the statements on the ground that they were induced by violence and threats of violence, and, as such, were obtained in violation of his 5th Amendment rights (see, People v Perry, 77 A.D.2d 269). At the hearing, the court was presented with an issue of credibility with respect to the voluntariness of defendant's statements. The court resolved the issue in favor of the People's witnesses. Since the suppression court's determination is to be accorded much weight (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759), and has support in the record (see, People v Alver, 111 A.D.2d 339), it should not be disturbed on the appeal.
Finally, defendant's sentence was neither unduly harsh nor excessive. The sentencing court properly considered the nature of the crime, defendant's lack of remorse, his prior encounters with the law, and the absence of mitigating factors. On this record, there is no reason to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.