From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Papa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 1990
168 A.D.2d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 31, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court improperly admitted into evidence the tape recording of an undercover narcotics transaction containing the statements of a nontestifying accomplice. We disagree. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the statements in question were admissible against him pursuant to a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, i.e., as statements of a coconspirator made in the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy (see, People v. Sanders, 56 N.Y.2d 51; People v. Salko, 47 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Hodge, 141 A.D.2d 843). We note that the People established by prima facie proof the existence of a conspiracy between the declarant and the defendant "without recourse to the declarations sought to be introduced" (People v. Salko, supra, at 238; see, People v. Bisnett, 144 A.D.2d 567; People v. Herman, 133 A.D.2d 377).

We also reject the defendant's argument that the recording was improperly admitted into evidence on the ground of inaudibility. The law is well settled that a recording will be excluded only if it is so inaudible and unintelligible that a jury must speculate as to its contents (see, People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520; People v. Carrington, 151 A.D.2d 687; People v. Morgan, 145 A.D.2d 442; see also, People v. Lubow, 29 N.Y.2d 58, 68; People v. Carrasco, 125 A.D.2d 695). Upon our own review of the audio tape, we are in agreement with the determination of the trial court that the recording is both audible and intelligible and, therefore, was properly admitted into evidence. Further, the court did not err in providing a transcript of the recording to the jury as an aid in listening to the tape (see, People v. Lubow, supra; People v. Mincey, 64 A.D.2d 615).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Kooper, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Papa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 1990
168 A.D.2d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Papa

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY PAPA, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 31, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
563 N.Y.S.2d 515

Citing Cases

People v. Wilson

The County Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing inquiry into the fact that the defendant had…

Papa v. Keane

The Appellate Division rejected these arguments. See People v. Papa, 168 A.D.2d 692, 692-93, 563 N.Y.S.2d…