From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 12, 1995
220 A.D.2d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 12, 1995

Appeal from the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.).


In September 1992 and again in November 1992, State Police Investigator Michael Kealon, while wearing a concealed microphone, negotiated the purchase of crack cocaine from defendant. All conversations relating to the purchase were recorded. Subsequent to defendant's arrest and indictment, the District Attorney sought to introduce into evidence the tapes of the conversations. County Court found the taped conversations of only one of the drug buys audible and thus admitted it and the transcript of the recording, prepared by the investigator who transacted the purchase with defendant, into evidence. Defendant contends that such determinations by County Court were in error. We disagree.

It is well settled that the audibility of a tape recording is a preliminary issue to be resolved by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion ( see, People v. Watson, 172 A.D.2d 882). We find that while the tape was "far from a model of clarity", it was sufficiently audible to support County Court's determination ( People v. Cline, 192 A.D.2d 957, 959, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1071; see, People v. Norwood, 142 A.D.2d 885, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 960; People v. Godley, 130 A.D.2d 791, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 750). As to the transcript, the fact that it was transcribed by the investigator who was involved in the drug buy does not necessarily render it inadmissible ( see, People v. Warner, 126 A.D.2d 788, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 887). Since it is within County Court's discretion to admit a transcript when it will serve as an assistance to the jury ( see, People v. Watson, supra), and the record reflects that the court instructed the jurors that the transcripts were to be used only as an aid if they found the tapes audible, we find no error.

We finally reject defendant's contention that it was error to deny a missing witness charge pertaining to the State Police informant who assisted in the investigation. There was no evidence that the informant participated in the critical conversations concerning the drug buy, that such testimony would have been relevant to the defense or that such testimony, if proffered, would have been anything other than cumulative. Accordingly, a missing witness charge was unnecessary ( see, People v. Dianda, 70 N.Y.2d 894).

Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 12, 1995
220 A.D.2d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE MITCHELL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Oct 12, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 291

Citing Cases

People v. Rivera

Although the matter presents an issue novel to New York appellate courts, an audibility hearing would appear…

People v. Williams

Finally, the court has reviewed the video tapes and enhanced audio tapes proffered by the People at the…