Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

People v. Ewell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 22, 2004

12 A.D.3d 616; 786 N.Y.S.2d 545; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14189

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Orlando v. Nassau Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office (2d Cir. 2019)
People v. Bryant (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
People v. Lockley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
People v. Alman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
People v. Churaman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
People v. Santos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Orlando (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Bryant (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Marji (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered June 27, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not *617violate his right to confront a witness when it permitted a detective to testify that he told the defendant that a codefendant had placed him at the scene of the killing. Such testimony was properly admitted into evidence not for its truth but to explain why the defendant confessed to the police when he did. The court properly instructed the jury that the testimony was admitted for the limited purpose of explaining the detective’s actions and their effect on the defendant, and not for the truth of the codefendant’s statement (see Tennessee v Street, 471 US 409, 413-417 [1985]; People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820 [2004]; People v Perez, 9 AD3d 376 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 710 [2004]; People v Hughes, 251 AD2d 513 [1998]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or relate to harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v Perez, supra; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.