People v. Vasquez
670 N.E.2d 1328, 88 N.Y.2d 561, 647 N.Y.S.2d 697 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a hearsay statement to be admissible under the present sense impression exception, it must be made substantially contemporaneously with the declarant's perception of the event, and the content of the statement must be independently corroborated by other evidence.
Facts:
- In People v. Vasquez, after an individual fired shots at a car, an anonymous person called 911 and reported that a Black man in a black jacket was fleeing the scene.
- A defense witness, Jose Tirado, testified that the shooter was a Black man who ran into a nearby pool hall, not fleeing north as the 911 caller stated.
- The police arrested Vasquez, a Hispanic male, in the pool hall after finding a gun and spent shells in the bathroom he had just exited.
- In People v. Dalton, 14-year-old Dalton had a violent altercation with 15-year-old Michael Sharib, which resulted in Dalton shooting and killing Sharib.
- A few minutes after the shooting, Dalton ran into his apartment and called 911, stating that Sharib had first attacked him with a gun and that he had acted in self-defense.
- In People v. Adkinson, a 10-year-old boy was sexually assaulted on the roof of his apartment building.
- Immediately after the assault, the boy went to his apartment, and his aunt called 911, relaying the boy's answers to the operator's questions.
- During the 911 call, the boy reportedly stated that he had been unable to see his attacker's face, which conflicted with his later identification of Adkinson.
Procedural Posture:
- In three separate criminal trials, defendants Vasquez, Dalton, and Adkinson were convicted of their respective charges.
- During their trials, each defendant sought to introduce the contents of a 911 call as evidence under the present sense impression or excited utterance hearsay exceptions, but the trial courts denied these requests.
- All three defendants appealed their convictions to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial courts' judgments.
- The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in all three cases and consolidated them to address the common legal issue regarding the present sense impression exception.
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 a hearsay statement made in a 911 call qualify for the present sense impression exception if it is not made substantially contemporaneously with the described event or if its content is not independently corroborated?
Opinions:
Majority - Titone, J.
No. A hearsay statement made in a 911 call does not qualify for the present sense impression exception if it lacks either substantial contemporaneity with the event or independent corroboration of its contents. The court clarified that the reliability of a present sense impression hinges on two key components. First, the statement must be made 'substantially contemporaneously' with the observation, meaning while the event is unfolding or so immediately after that there is no time for reflection or fabrication. Second, the content of the statement must be independently corroborated by extrinsic proof that supports its substance. In Vasquez, the 911 call lacked corroboration because the caller's description of the suspect's flight path contradicted the defense witness's testimony. In both Dalton and Adkinson, the calls lacked contemporaneity because they were made after the events had concluded and the declarants had moved to a different location, affording them an opportunity to reflect and potentially misrepresent the events.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and strictly construes the two foundational requirements for the present sense impression exception in New York: substantial contemporaneity and independent corroboration. By rejecting the 911 calls in all three cases, the court signals that this exception is narrow and will not apply to post-event narratives, even if made only minutes later. This precedent significantly impacts the admissibility of 911 calls, requiring trial courts to meticulously analyze not just the timing of the statement but also the existence of independent evidence verifying the declarant's substantive claims, making it more difficult to introduce such hearsay evidence.
