From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 1990
158 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

February 20, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the jury to use transcripts of tape recordings of cocaine sales played at the trial (see, People v Lubow, 29 N.Y.2d 58). The tapes were audible enough to be transcribed by a third party, and the transcripts were reviewed for accuracy by the informant who purchased the cocaine (see, People v Mincey, 64 A.D.2d 615). After a hearing, the court found the tapes to be audible. At the trial, the informant testified that the tapes were fair and accurate recordings of the conversations he had with the defendant, and the court instructed the jury that the transcripts were not in evidence but were for their assistance only. Under these circumstances, the submission to the jury of the transcripts was entirely proper (see, People v Lubow, 29 N.Y.2d 58, supra; People v Feld, 305 N.Y. 322; People v Warner, 126 A.D.2d 788; People v Kuss, 81 A.D.2d 427).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 1990
158 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Robinson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANSEL ROBINSON…

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

Date published: Feb 20, 1990

Citations

158 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
551 N.Y.S.2d 599

Citing Cases

People v. Wilson

vidence (see, People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520; People v. Lubow, 29 N.Y.2d 58, 68; People v. Morgan, 175 A.D.2d…

People v. Weaver

We find no indication in the record that the editing process rendered the tapes inaccurate (see, People v.…