Opinion ID: 2021581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Order of Proof

Text: We further note that the trial court did not err in conditionally admitting any hearsay statements of coconspirators subject to connection  that is, subject to later proof of a prima facie case of conspiracy. Although any statements admitted pursuant to the coconspirator's exception must have been made after the formation of the conspiracy  that is, in the course and in furtherance of it  testimony establishing the prima facie case need not precede testimony about the hearsay statements. Inasmuch as the order of proof at trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court ( see e.g. People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349, 353 [1974]), a coconspirator's statements are admissible as long as the People independently establish a conspiracy by the close of their case ( see e.g. People v McKane, 143 NY 455, 473 [1894] [even if the coconspirator's statements were objectionable at the time they were introduced, they were subsequently made competent by proof of the defendant's admissions that the coconspirator was acting under his orders]; People v Becker, 215 NY 126, 148-149 [1915]).