In a significant ruling on June 27, 2025, the New York Supreme Court in Kings County decided on the admissibility of statements made by a shooting victim in the case of People v. Biggs. The court's decision allows for the introduction of key hearsay evidence against Bruce Biggs, who is charged with the murder of his brother, Daniel Biggs. This ruling is crucial as it could impact the outcome of the trial and the rights of the defendant.
The case stems from an incident on May 2, 2021, when Daniel Biggs was shot multiple times. The prosecution alleges that Bruce Biggs was the shooter. The statements made by Daniel Biggs shortly after the shooting were captured on a police officer's body camera and are central to the prosecution's case.
The court's decision is particularly important for both the prosecution and the defense. It highlights the complexities surrounding hearsay evidence and the rights of defendants in criminal trials. The ruling could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, especially regarding the admissibility of excited utterances and dying declarations.
Background
In this case, Bruce Biggs faces serious charges, including second-degree murder and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon. The prosecution claims that he shot and killed his brother, Daniel Biggs, during an altercation.
After the shooting, Daniel Biggs made several statements to police officers and emergency medical technicians while being transported to the hospital. These statements included identifying Bruce Biggs as the shooter. The prosecution filed a motion to introduce these statements as evidence, arguing that they fall under exceptions to the hearsay rule, specifically as excited utterances and dying declarations.
The defense, however, contested the admissibility of these statements, arguing that they were testimonial in nature and should not be allowed in court. The court held evidentiary hearings to determine the admissibility of the statements, which included reviewing the body camera footage from Officer Christopher Murphy, who was one of the first responders at the scene.
The Ruling
Judge Dineen Ann Riviezzo ruled on the admissibility of the statements made by the decedent. The court granted the prosecution's motion to introduce the statements as excited utterances, stating, "the decedent was suffering from traumatic and serious injuries... made a spontaneous statement only 13 minutes after the shooting while he was in the ambulance." The court found that the statements were made in a state of excitement and were not the result of reflective thought.
However, the court denied the prosecution's request to classify the statements as dying declarations, stating that there was insufficient evidence to show that Daniel Biggs believed he was dying at the time he made the statements. The judge noted that the decedent did not express a sense of impending death and that his condition appeared to stabilize during transport to the hospital.
Additionally, the court granted the defendant's request for access to Daniel Biggs' criminal history for impeachment purposes, but denied the request to redact portions of the statements that referred to prior warnings made by the decedent to law enforcement.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the trial of Bruce Biggs. By allowing the statements made by the decedent to be introduced as excited utterances, the prosecution gains a critical piece of evidence that could help establish the identity of the shooter. The decision reinforces the legal principle that statements made in the heat of the moment can be considered reliable and admissible in court.
The court's analysis of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule may also influence future cases involving similar circumstances. The ruling underscores the importance of context and the immediacy of the statements when determining their admissibility. It highlights the balance that courts must strike between the rights of defendants and the need for effective prosecution in serious criminal cases.
What's Next
The trial is expected to proceed with the newly admitted evidence. The defendant may appeal the ruling on the admissibility of the statements once the trial concludes, depending on the outcome. Details regarding any related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.