From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lofton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 19, 1996
226 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 19, 1996

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Connell, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and other related charges involving the sale of cocaine to an undercover investigator of the Monroe County Sheriff's Department and a robbery of the investigator. On appeal, defendant contends that the investigator's testimony concerning audio and video tapes made during the drug transactions and the robbery constituted bolstering and that the admission of that testimony also violated the best evidence rule. At trial, defendant objected to the receipt of those tapes into evidence, along with written transcripts, but failed to object to the investigator's testimony regarding the content of the tapes. Thus, his contentions are unpreserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1025; People v Chambers, 191 A.D.2d 1031, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1012). In any event, defendant's contentions are without merit. The investigator's testimony was necessary to identify the voices on the audio tapes and to interpret certain terms used by defendant during the negotiation and completion of the drug transactions ( see, People v. Bignall, 195 A.D.2d 997, 998, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 891; People v. Portanova, 56 A.D.2d 265, 271-272). In addition, the court properly instructed the jury that, as the trier of the facts, the jury ultimately had to interpret the tapes. The investigator's testimony concerning the recorded conversations did not violate the best evidence rule ( see, People v. Torres, 118 A.D.2d 821, 822, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 672). Lastly, based upon defendant's prior criminal history and the seriousness of the offenses, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.


Summaries of

People v. Lofton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 19, 1996
226 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Lofton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BEN LOFTON, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 19, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 113

Citing Cases

People v. Vernay

We reject defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion in allowing the 911 operator's…

People v. Vernay

We reject defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion in allowing the 911 operator's…