People v Jorge Mateo

Annotate this Case
People v Mateo 2003 NY Slip Op 20149 [2 AD3d 1365] December 31, 2003 Appellate Division, Fourth Department As corrected through Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 25, 2004

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Jorge Mateo, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Bellini, J.), entered September 19, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]) for the shooting death of the victim. We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in admitting the out-of-court declaration of the victim identifying defendant as his assailant. The statement was made by the victim while he was "under the stress of the event" (People v Vigliotti, 270 AD2d 904, 904 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 839, 970 [2000]) and at a time when he was so severely wounded that his "impending death could be readily inferred" (People v Thanh Giapp, 273 AD2d 54, 55 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 872 [2000]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court properly determined that an eyewitness who invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was unavailable to testify (see People v Snow, 298 AD2d 985 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 564 [2002]). In addition, the court properly permitted the prosecutor to read the testimony of that eyewitness from the preliminary hearing into the record at trial, inasmuch as defendant had a fair opportunity to cross-examine him at the preliminary hearing (see id.). Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during his cross-examination of defendant, and, in any event, we conclude that defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial (see People v Conway, 277 AD2d 1020 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 782 [2001]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.