People v. Cummings

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
31 N.Y.3d 204, 75 N.Y.S.3d 484, 99 N.E.3d 877 (2018)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a statement to be admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, the record must contain evidence from which a court can reasonably infer that the declarant personally observed the startling event they are describing.

Facts:

On March 19, 2012, a man exited a silver minivan on a street corner where Messrs. Relaford, Phillips, and Allen were standing.
The man pointed a gun at the group and shot all three individuals.
After the shooting, the gunman reentered the minivan, which quickly drove away from the scene.
Shortly thereafter, one of the victims, Mr. Phillips, called 911.
During the 911 call, an unidentified person in the background was heard stating, "Yo, it was Twanek, man! It was Twanek, man!"
Police later stopped a minivan matching the description, and the passenger, the suspected gunman, fled.
Twanek Cummings' fingerprint was subsequently found on the passenger door of the minivan.
None of the three shooting victims were able to identify Cummings in a police lineup.

Procedural Posture:

Twanek Cummings was first tried in New York Supreme Court, the state's trial court.
In the first trial, the court denied the People's application to admit the statement from the 911 call.
The jury deadlocked, and the court declared a mistrial.
During jury selection for the retrial, the second presiding judge also denied the application to admit the statement.
This judge became ill and was replaced by a third judge, who reconsidered the prior ruling and admitted the statement as an excited utterance.
The jury convicted Cummings on multiple counts, including assault and criminal possession of a weapon.
Cummings, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing the admission of the statement was reversible error.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding no error in admitting the statement.
The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, granted Cummings leave to appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule permit the admission of an unidentified declarant's statement recorded on a 911 call when there is no evidence to support an inference that the declarant personally observed the shooting they were describing?

Opinions:

Majority - Wilson, J.

No. The excited utterance exception does not permit admission of the statement because the proponent of the evidence must establish a basis from which it can be reasonably inferred that the declarant had a personal opportunity to observe the event. The core justification for the exception is that the statement is an impulsive and unreflecting response to a startling event observed by the declarant. In this case, the speaker is unidentified, and surveillance video shows numerous people running toward the scene after the shooter had already fled, making it impossible to know if the speaker witnessed the shooting or was merely repeating information heard from others. The circumstantial evidence, such as Cummings' fingerprint on the van, corroborates a possible connection to the crime but does not establish the declarant's personal knowledge. Because there is no evidence from which to infer personal observation, the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The error was not harmless as the statement was the only direct identification evidence, and the prosecution heavily relied upon it during summation.

Concurring - Rivera, J.

Yes, I agree with the majority's conclusion that the statement was inadmissible under our current precedent. However, the entire psychological underpinning of the excited utterance exception is questionable and warrants reconsideration. Modern scientific and psychological research suggests that stress and trauma can distort perception and memory, undermining the long-held legal assumption that excitement guarantees truthfulness. Many legal scholars and jurists have criticized the exception as resting more on 'judicial habit' than on reliable science. Because the defendant did not challenge the validity of the exception itself, the analysis is properly constrained to the existing legal framework, which compels reversal for the reasons stated by the majority.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces and clarifies the personal observation requirement as a crucial element for admitting evidence under the excited utterance exception, particularly for statements made by unidentified declarants. The court signals that trial judges cannot simply assume a declarant witnessed an event based on their proximity in time and place; there must be affirmative circumstantial evidence to support such an inference. This raises the bar for prosecutors seeking to admit anonymous statements from 911 calls, requiring them to lay a stronger foundation regarding the declarant's firsthand knowledge. The ruling also distinguishes between evidence corroborating a defendant's guilt and evidence establishing the reliability of a hearsay statement, holding that the former cannot substitute for the latter.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Cummings (2018)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"