New York Court of Appeals, 1980

People v. Liccione

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 3, 1980

50 N.Y.2d 850; 407 N.E.2d 1333; 430 N.Y.S.2d 36; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2421

Cases that cite this one

54 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Mercado v. Stinson (District Court, S.D. New York 1999)
People v. Nieves (N.Y. 1986)
Guichard v. Smith (District Court, E.D. New York 1981)
People v. Buie (N.Y. 1995)
People v. Mendez (New York Supreme Court 1992)
People v. Coleman (N.Y. 1982)
People v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
People v. Gumbs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Clay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Paul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Caruso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Watson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Vigliotti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Dukes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Mateo (New York County Courts 1997)
People v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Bunbury (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Harris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Pou (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Caicedo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Doles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Vargas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Basso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Crea (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*851Defendant has been convicted of second degree murder relating to the killing of his wife. The most substantial issue raised on this appeal is whether certain statements made by the individual who fatally assaulted defendant’s wife, which were admitted as a part of the wife’s dying declarations, constituted inadmissible hearsay. The assailant’s statements, as communicated by the victim before she died, implicated defendant in a plot to kill his wife, and were received in evidence, on the theory that defendant and the assailant were coconspirators. Defendant now argues, inter alia, that the statements were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy and thus should not have been admitted under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

Whatever the merits of this contention, the issue is not preserved for review. For, although defendant specifically objected to the admissibility of the dying declaration qua dying declaration, and also specifically objected to the alleged failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy, no question was raised as to whether the assailant’s statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. These objections in this instance preserved only the grounds specified (see, generally, Richardson, Evidence [10th ed— Prince], § 538) and thus the precise issue argued is beyond our power of review.

The court has examined those of defendant’s remaining contentions which are reviewable and has found no reversible error.

. Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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