People v. Roper

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Roper

216 N.E.2d 711, 17 N.Y.2d 711, 269 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1478

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 N.E.2d 711 (People v. Roper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Roper, 216 N.E.2d 711, 17 N.Y.2d 711, 269 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1478 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The judgments of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. We need not decide whether entrapment is currently recognized as a defense in New York since, even if it is, the present ease did not create an issue of fact requiring submission to the jury (cf. Revised Penal Law, § 35,40, enacted by L. 1965, ch. 1030, eff. Sept. 1, 1967), No error was committed by the trial court in refusing appellants’ request to test the accuracy of Minifon transcripts by requiring the jury to attempt to [713]*713identify the voices and dialogue without them or by having a court reporter transcribe the tapes as they were being played for the jury. The appellants were afforded considerable latitude to test the transcripts, and all prior transcripts were made available (People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286; People v. O’Keefe, 281 App. Div. 409, affd. 306 N. Y. 619, cert. den. 347 U. S. 989). We have examined the additional assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Soileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Judgments affirmed.

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

Memorandum. The judgments of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. We need not decide whether entrapment is currently recognized as a defense in New York since, even if it is, the present ease did not create an issue of fact requiring submission to the jury (cf. Revised Penal Law, § 35,40, enacted by L. 1965, ch. 1030, eff. Sept. 1, 1967), No error was committed by the trial court in refusing appellants’ request to test the accuracy of Minifon transcripts by requiring the jury to attempt to [713]*713identify the voices and dialogue without them or by having a court reporter transcribe the tapes as they were being played for the jury. The appellants were afforded considerable latitude to test the transcripts, and all prior transcripts were made available (People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286; People v. O’Keefe, 281 App. Div. 409, affd. 306 N. Y. 619, cert. den. 347 U. S. 989). We have examined the additional assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Soileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 N.E.2d 711, 17 N.Y.2d 711, 269 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roper-ny-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack