New York Law Review

Tag: Contemporaneity

  • People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 742 (1996): Hearsay Exception for Present Sense Impression Requires Contemporaneity

    88 N.Y.2d 742 (1996)

    The present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule requires that the statement be made contemporaneously with the event being described, leaving no time for reflection.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a 911 call reporting a past crime was improperly admitted as a present sense impression. The caller identified the defendant as the person who committed a murder several hours earlier. The court reasoned that the time lapse between the event and the statement allowed for reflection, undermining the reliability of the statement. While the admission was deemed erroneous, the court found it to be harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt from eyewitness testimony.

    Facts

    On August 12, 1993, at approximately 4:30 a.m., the defendant, Vasquez, allegedly shot and killed the victim. Two eyewitnesses identified Vasquez as the shooter. Between 7:11 a.m. and 7:31 a.m., an anonymous caller made 911 calls claiming to observe the person who committed the murder earlier that morning. The caller described the suspect’s clothing. These 911 tapes were introduced as evidence at trial.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of homicide and weapons possession. The trial court admitted the 911 tapes under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. The defendant appealed, arguing the tapes were improperly admitted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the 911 tapes were properly admitted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule when the caller referred to observations made several hours earlier.

    2. Whether the admission of the 911 tapes, if erroneous, constituted harmless error.

    Holding

    1. No, because the caller had time for reflection between the event (the shooting at 4:30 a.m.) and the 911 call (made after 7:00 a.m.), which negates the reliability that underlies the present sense impression exception.

    2. Yes, because the proof of guilt was overwhelming based on eyewitness testimony, and there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted had the 911 tapes not been introduced.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals determined that the 911 tapes were erroneously admitted because they did not meet the requirements of the present sense impression exception. The court emphasized that the key to this exception is the contemporaneity of the statement and the event observed, which eliminates the possibility of reflection or faulty recollection. The court quoted People v. Brown, stating that “because the contemporaneity of the event observed and the hearsay statement describing it leaves no time for reflection * * * the likelihood of deliberate misrepresentation or faulty recollection is eliminated.” The court found that the three-hour time lapse provided ample opportunity for reflection, rendering the identification unreliable.

    The court then addressed whether the error was harmless. It applied the nonconstitutional harmless error standard from People v. Crimmins, which requires assessing whether (1) proof of guilt was overwhelming; and (2) there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted had the proscribed evidence not been introduced. The court found that the eyewitness testimony and the defendant’s flight demonstrated overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court further noted that the 911 tapes lacked detail and contained potential discrepancies, making it unlikely that the jury’s verdict depended on their admission. Therefore, the court concluded that the erroneous admission of the 911 tapes was harmless error.

  • People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561 (1996): Admissibility of 911 Calls as Present Sense Impressions

    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.”