88 N.Y.2d 561 (1996)

For a statement to be admissible under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, it must be made substantially contemporaneously with the event it describes and be corroborated by independent evidence supporting the statement’s content.

Summary

This case consolidates three appeals concerning the admissibility of 911 calls as present sense impressions. The New York Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for this hearsay exception, emphasizing contemporaneity and corroboration. In People v. Vasquez, a 911 call reporting a shooting was deemed inadmissible due to lack of corroboration of the caller’s description. In People v. Dalton, the defendant’s 911 call after a shooting was excluded because it wasn’t contemporaneous with the event. In People v. Adkinson, a 911 call reporting a sexual assault was deemed inadmissible. The Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, stressing the need for statements to be made during or immediately after the event and supported by independent evidence to ensure reliability.

Facts

• People v. Vasquez: An anonymous 911 caller reported a shooting, describing a black man fleeing. A defense witness described the shooter differently.
• People v. Dalton: The defendant called 911 after shooting the victim, claiming self-defense.
• People v. Adkinson: A victim’s aunt called 911 after a sexual assault; the victim stated he couldn’t see the attacker’s face, contradicting his later testimony.

Procedural History

• People v. Vasquez: The trial court excluded the 911 call; the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
• People v. Dalton: The trial court excluded the 911 call; the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
• People v. Adkinson: The trial court excluded the 911 call; the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
• Each case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the 911 call in People v. Vasquez was admissible as a present sense impression.
2. Whether the 911 call in People v. Dalton was admissible as a present sense impression or an excited utterance.
3. Whether the 911 call in People v. Adkinson was admissible as a present sense impression.

Holding

1. No, because the content of the 911 call was not sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence.
2. No, because the statement was not contemporaneous with the event, nor was it made under the stress of excitement.
3. No, because the statement was not contemporaneous with the event.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that the present sense impression exception requires both contemporaneity and corroboration. Contemporaneity means the statement must be made during or immediately after the event, leaving no time for reflection. Corroboration requires independent evidence supporting the substance of the statement. In Vasquez, the 911 call lacked corroboration because the caller’s description of the fleeing man differed from the defense witness’s description of the shooter. In Dalton, the defendant’s call was made after the shooting and his retreat indoors, allowing time for reflection. The court noted, “Without satisfaction of this requirement, the essential assurance of reliability—the absence of time for reflection and the reduced likelihood of faulty recollection—is negated.” In Adkinson, the victim’s statement on the 911 call was not contemporaneous with the assault. The Court distinguished present sense impressions from excited utterances, noting that the former relies on contemporaneity and corroboration, while the latter depends on the declarant’s excited state. The Court stated, “‘Excited utterances’ are the product of the declarant’s exposure to a startling or upsetting event that is sufficiently powerful to render the observer’s normal reflective processes inoperative…’Present sense impression’ declarations, in contrast, are descriptions of events made by a person who is perceiving the event as it is unfolding.”