From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Eddins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 17, 1998

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).

The absence of a stenographic record does not, per se, require reversal of a defendant's conviction ( see, People v. Harrison, 85 N.Y.2d 794; People v. Glass, 43 N.Y.2d 283; People v. Fearon, 13 N.Y.2d 59). Reversal is only required if the defendant is prejudiced by the absence of a stenographic record ( see, People v. Fearon, supra). Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity which attaches to a judicial proceeding ( see, People v. Glass, supra, at 287) and the unavailability of a stenographic record, either because it has been lost or inadvertently destroyed, standing by itself, will not rebut that presumption ( see, People v. Harrison, supra, at 796). Under the circumstances of this case, reversal is not warranted as the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the absence of the missing minutes.

Contrary to the defendant's further contention, "a chain of custody is not required for the introduction of tape recordings" into evidence ( People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 60, cert denied sub nom. Waters v. New York, 446 U.S. 942). Rather, a foundation may be established by a participant to the conversation who testifies that the conversation has been accurately and fairly reproduced ( see, People v. McGee, supra; United States v. Amrep Corp., 660 F.2d 539, cert denied 434 U.S. 1015). Here, as a participant to each recorded conversation testified to the completeness and accuracy of each recording, the tape recordings were properly admitted into evidence.

The defendant's remaining contentions lack merit.

Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Eddins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Eddins

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PAUL EDDINS, Also…

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

Date published: Feb 17, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 605

Citing Cases

People v. Davis

Reversal is only required if the defendant is prejudiced by the absence of a stenographic record. Under the…

People v. Coward

" Rather, a defendant must show that a request was made that the voir dire proceedings be recorded, the…