The law of the case doctrine and the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule are two very fact-specific determinations. The law of the case doctrine is not meant to be a limitation on judicial discretion or power; however, judges should not completely disregard prior decisions made within a single case. Similarly, the foundation and basis of the excited utterance exception is crucial in determining whether it should be applied to the statements of a specific case at hand. Recently, in People v. Cummings (Ct. App. 5/8/18) (Wilson, J.) (6-1-0), the Court found that a lower court erroneously admitted such statements, leading to the conviction of the defendant, Cummings. There, the out-of-court statements were extracted from the background of a 911 call, made by an unidentified person. Continue reading
Editor & Author
Contributing AuthorsFellows of the St. John's Center for Trial and Appellate Advocacy
Read their bios under About the Authors.
- “Dangerous Contraband”: What is it?
- Old Enough to Know Better, But Not Enough to Warrant a 35-Year Sentence
- State and Local Law Enforcement Prohibited from Making Civil Immigration Arrests
- Suazo: Where We Go From Here
- Officer’s Intent Irrelevant When Determining Whether Defendant Was Subject to Custodial Interrogation
CategoriesAdvice App. Div. 1st Dept. App. Div. 2d Dept. App. Div. 3d Dept. App. Div. 4th Dept. App. Term 1st Dept. App. Term 2d Dept. Appellate Procedure Blog News Case Summaries Civil Law Collateral Relief Commentaries Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Law Ethics Evidence Juries Mental Illness N.Y. Court of Appeals New Decisions New Legislation News Penal Law Second Circuit St. John's Suppression Trial Courts Uncategorized Vehicle and Traffic Law