People v Jones
2009 NY Slip Op 07013 [66 AD3d 1442]
October 2, 2009
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isaac A.Jones, Appellant.

[*1]Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Grazina Myers of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Kelly Christine Wolford of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), renderedDecember 21, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter inthe second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofmanslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]) and two counts of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1], [former (4)]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly admitted the statements of thevictim made shortly after the shooting under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay ruleinasmuch as the statements were made while she was under the extraordinary stress of herinjuries (see People v Cotto, 92 NY2d 68, 78-79 [1998]). Also contrary to defendant'scontention, the court properly admitted in evidence the victim's statements made immediatelyprior to the shooting under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. A witnessfor the People testified that she heard the victim say to defendant, "Boy, put this thing down.You don't know if it has a safety on it or not." Shortly thereafter, the witness heard a gunshot inthe victim's apartment. The statements constitute a present sense impression, because they weremade while the declarant was perceiving "the event as it [was] unfolding" (People vVasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 574 [1996]), and they were sufficiently corroborated by defendant'sstatement to the police (see id. at 575-576).

Finally, the court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences (see People vSalcedo, 92 NY2d 1019, 1021-1022 [1998]), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.