- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- People v. Brooks
- Date
- May 28, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03370
Background
Defendant Michael Brooks was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The charges arose from a gunpoint robbery. Brooks was originally sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to an aggregate term of twenty years to life, but was later resentenced as a second violent felony offender to an aggregate term of fifteen years. On appeal, Brooks challenged the admission of the victim’s 911 call statements as excited utterances. The victim had called 911 within minutes of being robbed at gunpoint while he was still pursuing the individuals who robbed him.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed both the original judgment and the resentence. The Court held that the trial court properly admitted the victim’s 911 call statements as excited utterances. Under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, statements made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event are admissible because the declarant’s state of mind reduces the likelihood of fabrication. The victim called 911 within minutes of the robbery while actively pursuing the robbers, demonstrating that he was still under the stress of the startling event. His contemporaneous interaction with police officers further corroborated the immediacy and genuineness of his statements. The Court also addressed and rejected other challenges raised on appeal.
Takeaways
Statements made during a 911 call placed within minutes of a crime, while the victim is still under the stress of the event and actively pursuing the perpetrators, qualify as excited utterances and are admissible under the hearsay exception. The temporal proximity between the startling event and the statement, combined with evidence that the declarant was still in an excited state (such as actively pursuing the perpetrators), satisfies the foundational requirements for the exception. Courts will consider the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the event, the time elapsed, and the declarant’s conduct, in determining whether the statement was made under sufficient stress to qualify.
Why It Matters
This decision provides practical guidance on the excited utterance exception in the context of 911 calls made during or immediately after violent crimes. Prosecutors should preserve and present evidence of the circumstances surrounding 911 calls, including the time elapsed since the event and the caller’s state of mind as reflected in the call itself and in contemporaneous police observations. Defense attorneys challenging excited utterance testimony should focus on whether sufficient time elapsed for the caller to reflect and potentially fabricate, and whether the caller’s conduct suggests calculation rather than spontaneity. The resentencing from persistent violent felony offender to second violent felony offender status also illustrates the significant sentencing implications of predicate felony classification.