The following excerpt is from People v. Ludwig, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07201, 21 N.E.3d 1012, 24 N.Y.3d 221, 997 N.Y.S.2d 351 (N.Y. 2014):
Moreover, in the few cases where the investigative purpose rule has been applied, that purpose was in issue and the court provided a proper limiting instruction to the jury prescribing the use of the statement for a narrow purpose and not for its truth. For example, as the majority points out, in People v. Gregory, 78 A.D.3d 1246, 1246, 910 N.Y.S.2d 295 (3d Dept.2010), lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 831, 921 N.Y.S.2d 195, 946 N.E.2d 183 (2011), a police officer's testimony about the victim's comments explained the officer's actions and the sequence of events in an investigation. Accompanying the testimony was an
[21 N.E.3d 1023]
[997 N.Y.S.2d 362]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.