People v. Pal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pal

49 A.D.2d 631, 370 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10462

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 21, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 631 (People v. Pal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Pal, 49 A.D.2d 631, 370 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 3, 1974, convicting him of prescribing a depressant drug in violation of section 3385 of the Public Health Law (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. In his bill of particulars, the District Attorney gave an affirmative answer to the question whether any "bugging” devices had been used to monitor or record conversations between defendant and any other individual. Thereafter, defendant submitted a supplemental motion for discovery and inspection which included a request to inspect and copy any and all copies of tapes or recordings. At the hearing on the motion, which was held shortly before the trial, the prosecutor stated repeatedly that the tapes were in fact inaudible and would not be used at the trial. After defendant testified at the trial, the prosecutor informed the court that he wished to recall the undercover agent as a rebuttal witness and, in addition, that he would offer in evidence a tape recording of a conversation between defendant and the agent. The prosecutor represented to the court, and the agent testified, that although the tapes were in fact inaudible when they were originally played, the tape in question had just been found to be clear and audible when played on a newly acquired machine. The prosecutor was permitted to introduce the tape in rebuttal. This prejudicial conduct on the part of the prosecutor denied defendant a fair trial (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; cf. People v Steinschreiber, 47 AD2d 770). Defense strategy may have been determined by the prosecutor’s representation that the tape was inaudible (United States v Padrone, 406 F2d 560). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 3, 1974, convicting him of prescribing a depressant drug in violation of section 3385 of the Public Health Law (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. In his bill of particulars, the District Attorney gave an affirmative answer to the question whether any "bugging” devices had been used to monitor or record conversations between defendant and any other individual. Thereafter, defendant submitted a supplemental motion for discovery and inspection which included a request to inspect and copy any and all copies of tapes or recordings. At the hearing on the motion, which was held shortly before the trial, the prosecutor stated repeatedly that the tapes were in fact inaudible and would not be used at the trial. After defendant testified at the trial, the prosecutor informed the court that he wished to recall the undercover agent as a rebuttal witness and, in addition, that he would offer in evidence a tape recording of a conversation between defendant and the agent. The prosecutor represented to the court, and the agent testified, that although the tapes were in fact inaudible when they were originally played, the tape in question had just been found to be clear and audible when played on a newly acquired machine. The prosecutor was permitted to introduce the tape in rebuttal. This prejudicial conduct on the part of the prosecutor denied defendant a fair trial (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; cf. People v Steinschreiber, 47 AD2d 770). Defense strategy may have been determined by the prosecutor’s representation that the tape was inaudible (United States v Padrone, 406 F2d 560). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 631, 370 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pal-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack